Article about a film that has never actually been released, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFF criteria. It is true that Deepa Mehta announced about 15 years ago that a film about the Komagata Maru was entering development -- but it's never actually been completed or released at all, and certainly not in 2014 as this article claims (per this article, which states that the film was "still in the pipeline" as of 2019.) But the references here are mainly primary sources and dead links, which are not support for notability — and the only nominally acceptable source is a brief glancing (and likely erroneous) namecheck of it in an overview of Mehta's entire career, not coverage about this film. And while a bit of reliable source coverage can be found about her announcement that this was going into development, there's not enough of that to suggest a reason why a never-finished film could remain permanently notable despite its failure to ever come to fruition: there's no evidence that it even entered photography at all, and the search string "Deepa Mehta exclusion" mainly just brings up references to the narrative themes of Beeba Boys and Funny Boy. So this film was simply never completed or released at all, and thus isn't permanently notable as an unrealized project. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Quick search showed more notability for other people with this name. Unclear if this can be expanded given the handful of edits over the past 15 years since it was created. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously Expired PROD. concern was: "Insufficient coverage in reliable sources; accomplishments relate to his company, not him, so he is not notable under WP:NMUSIC"—that still stands. This is just a largely unsourced database entry, and the provided sources do not talk about him but are generic product listing/database entries. Unless new & better sources are introduced, this individual does not appear to have enough sig, in-depth coverage. X (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the article as it stands could do with better sources - and quite a lot of work on formatting - but a quick google shows that he is notable enough and covered in news articles, Billboard magazine, etc. that qualifies him for inclusion. His music has been used a LOT in films, which makes him pretty notable. I don't have time to spend on improving it now but would like to come back to it if nobody else does. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I can't see sigcov of him personally (eg: for Billboard [1][2][3]), the format is totally unsuitable, and it's not clear at all to me what is significant. For example, He-man and the Masters of the Universe credits him for "title music" on IMDB, but when you dig he's not the main composer and there's a lot of people credited for title music[4][5]; there's no info on Hawkeye's December the 24[6]; he's in as an executive music producer for a season of Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks but not as composer[7][8]; he's third credited name on Underdoggs' See Me Rock It[9]. The only criterion that he looks to maybe pass is WP:NMUSIC#10 but it's likely to require a lot of digging to establish the evidence for this and to cut his article down to noteworthy works. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~07:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every source is PR. Many of them are interviews with the subject for promotional purposes. I'm not finding any in-depth, reliable, independent, coverage elsewhere, either, only a few passing mentions. Also does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC (assuming Avamere is not major). —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the article for this song has virtually entirely reliable sourcing on the surface, looking at the sources closer, I think it doesn't pass this section of WP:NSONGS: "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." That is exactly the kind of situation I see here, and it's what it leads me to believe it should just be redirected to With Teeth. Of the sources in the article, most are passing mentions from album reviews, one is a publication posting a video of them performing it live for the first time which does not show notability, and the content and source in the "cultural references" section really don't add much of anything to the article, reliability notwithstanding. The song has not charted or been certified anywhere, as far as I can see. I can't find any additional coverage of this song, so once again, it should just be redirected to the above-mentioned article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the WP:SIGCOV though? I didn't argue that any of the sourcing was unreliable, nor did I say that all of the sources were reviews of the album, merely that most of them are. Of the ones that aren't, one is a publication that talks about the song being played live for the first time, which does not establish notability, and the other one is a book about the band that briefly provides the author's opinion on the song -- the book does not devote significant time to the song, so it is merely a passing mention. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to delete this in 2014 or 2015. Following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, which until then was a main argument for keeping this. All schools are subject to the notability guidelines. Searches in English and Bengali found nothing that would demonstrate notability, nothing more substantial than inclusion in government lists of schools and passing mentions. Redirection to Paksey, where the school is located, is a possibile alternative to deletion. Worldbruce (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a little more coverage of the game (here and here), which, while not exactly stellar, is sufficient to keep the article alongside the other sources. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTTEMPORARY, what was good enough for 2011 is still good enough, unless there's a very specific guideline change that negates previous arguments. -Fangz (talk)
Also I found this academic article discussing the game. [10] and this Masters Thesis [11] -Fangz (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎08:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Fangz is right; getting discussed by academics and featuring so heavily (extended text about the game, and a statement that it was one of two games that inspired the investigation) in an MSc elevates it beyond run-of-the-mill game, and gives notability. Elemimele (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable; New York Times article (I read it completely) only provides general information (likely from the website or press-release, e.g.a "The company’s website makes no mention of imaging people, or the privacy issues. Even so, reconnaissance experts say regulators should wake up before its spacecraft start taking their first close-ups").
Also I found other sources to be not SIGCOV Qivatari (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very week keep actually. The NYT article meets WP:ORGCRIT. It has editorial oversight so unless OP is able to show the publication failed to do so it can be used towards notability. By weak, I mean the other reference I found was this in TechCrunch. Parts of the article are obviously supplied by the company but there does appear to be enough independent coverage within to meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to go with redirect for this one, just seems too soon for now. I'm not entirely sold on the NYT article, but I think I would go for a keep if we had 3 sources of equal quality (though I'd prefer it if at least one of them was better of course). Even with how much of it is made of quotes, the parts of it that don't (and are actually about the company) clear my threshold, if barely. Unfortunately, we don't have three, and the TechCrunch doesn't quite do it for me, and nor do any of the news articles that cite the NYT article offer enough additional content to swing things. As a plus, that NYT article should be suitable as a source for a bit of content to use in Very low Earth orbit which I'm recommending as the target as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT; journeyman footballer who played on low levels in various places. Not even databases have much about him. WorldFootball records 6 games in the German Oberliga, which was the fourth amateur tier at the time. Soccerway records 312 minutes of play in the USSF Division 2. There is not even a good claim to notability here. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged uncited for years and Turkish article also uncited. I searched for sources but it is hard for me to tell if this place is notable as I am not a native speaker and don’t live in Ankara. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a well-known area in downtown Ankara and appears on pretty much all maps of the city. It is a bit like “Whitehall” as a term, and unfortunately literally means “ministries”. There will be sources in Turkish about the history and development of the area and its street, major buildings and historical significance, but trying to fillet that out of the general mass of items just about “ministries” would be a daunting task. Mccapra (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another "Baker calls it a post office and there's nothing there" pop. place "town"; in this case it might be a rail point but nonetheless seems non-notable beyond the odd spelling. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forbes and LA articles are not meeting NCORP as they are build around the founder Peabody and include lots of quotations. For instance, here is the LA so-called coverage based on citations:
Peabody aligned with charitable causes to help build community. “We set up an L.A. Service Workers Relief Fund and for one month donated 100% of our online sales to it,” she said. “We also encouraged the Bev community to donate to the initiative’s GoFundMe and matched the first $3,000 of donations. Bev’s sales grew 200% month over month during the pandemic.”
“Traditionally men buy wine in liquor stores while women buy wine in grocery stores,” she said. “Gallo is putting Bev at women’s fingertipsshe said.
In 2018 Alix Peabody, then 26 and an MFA student in screenwriting at USC, launched Bev canned wine company to pay off extensive medical bills. “I started with cans because it’s hard to create brand recognition around a bottled product,” she said. “Once you pour it into a glass, no one can tell what you’re drinking, but cans are essentially mini-billboards for the brand.”
“When lockdown hit, we had to get creative in order to reach our consumers at home,” she said. “We built a text-to-order platform in 48 hours, launched a new website designed for increased conversion and started running ads,” she said.
Comment- They are detailing the early history of the company which is exactly what makes the article in depth. Interviews are a natural part of that research and she is properly attributing which facts came through an interview. Here is another forbes article and there is plenty in Wikipedia:Before to say Wikipedia:NEXIST. SunnyScion (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about albums, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As usual, Wikipedia's approach to albums used to extend an automatic presumption of notability to any album that was recorded by a notable artist regardless of sourcing or the lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been deprecated, and an album now has to have a meaningful notability claim (chart success, notable music awards, a significant volume of coverage and analysis about it, etc.) and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it. But none of these three albums are making any notability claim above and beyond "this is an album that exists", two of the three are completely unreferenced, and the one that does have references doesn't have good ones: it's citing one review in an unreliable source, and one "Billboard chart history" that lists no actual chart positions and is present only to footnote a release date that it doesn't actually support rather than any charting claims. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more expertise in Christian music than I've got can find the right kind of sourcing to salvage them, but simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt an album from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We need to see some participation here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. Of the 14 sources given, only 3 are not self-published by the Stalin Society or its affiliates. Of the 3 sources that are not primary sources, the Stalin Society is only mentioned in passing, as an affiliation of individuals the authors are criticising. A search on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar returns zero reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the organisation. Yue🌙03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage isn’t great but without too much searching I found this from The Independent, this Google book snippet and this from an independent (hostile) source. The article itself is well-written, neutral and discusses the society’s views by (correctly) referencing its own statements. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That piece by The Independent is cited in the article, but it suffers from the same issue as the book excerpt you linked: the coverage isn't in-depth. A lot of failed political candidates and local quacks would have their own articles if mere mentions sufficed. Yue🌙01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the reliability and notability of some of the sources you brought up.
The Weekly Worker is not the paper of the CPGB; it is the paper of an offshoot of an offshoot (NCP) of the CPGB, the CPGB-PCC. Those Wikipedia articles themselves lack significant coverage from reliable sources. A supermajority of the sources in both articles are from the CPGB-PCC or its sister organisations praising the CPGB-PCC.
I am not surprised that the "Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations" contains a mention of the Stalin Society. But how is that mention significant or notable? I would argue that is not, given it is merely a brief mention.
Admittedly a weaker rebuttal with this final point, but I would contend that, although a journalist covered the organisation in detail, there is still no obvious point of notability given in this Wikipedia article or otherwise. What has the Society done?
Some of the previous editors of this Wikipedia article seem to believe that the British Stalin Society is the same Stalin Society in every other country. Do reliable sources make this connection? Is the Georgian and Bangladeshi Stalin Societies, for example, under the British one? Or are they merely inspired?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing for a Keep, please note the comments from the nominator. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the Orlando Sentinel, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. --Presearch (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (churnalism) in a local newspaper does NOT add toward notability.
Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further, WP:NEXIST cautions, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
It's not my case that no sources exist — 1 and 2 from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several more sources, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability (WP:GNG)
Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the userfied (non-Wikipedia) essay on "churnalism" acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability.
Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's just a republished press release or not, but just because a newspaper is small, defunct, or aimed at a particular audience does not mean that it is not reliable as a source. Besides, 30,000 people is a large number. If there's any good reason to believe that it is not an RS or is a press release, then I see your point, but just size does not disqualify sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a futher review of sources presented in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.com/books?id=DxneawQ8sKQC -- published book -- "Two other milestones during this period were the establishment of a Hindu University of America in Florida and..." -- cited as having a significant description of it
So the book, the Orlando Times article, and the Rediff article seem like good sources, even if the latter two have no author listed for some reason. The book seems to think it is significant in the history of what it recounts.
Keep: The RS Noticeboard considers both Rediff News and the Orlando Sentinel to be reliable sources. Although neither article has a byline, these publications provide enough WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:NORG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passed WP:MUSICWP:CREATIVE. He has released three different albums, he is a notable representative of Igbo raps with enough collaboration with other notable musicians. He also has reliable coverages for verifiability some of which are 1, 2, 3.Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ibjaja055 so the sources you provided don't support notability as per WP:NMUSIC. But there might be sources in Igbo, do you know where I might be able to find them? I'm not an expert on Igbo or Nigeria so if you could point me in the right direction I'll try to find some sources and add them in. If you think there are offline sources then we can just send this to draft until they can be added.
Appears to be reliable after reading a few other articles
Article is 177 words and mentions that he has views on music piracy. Claims he's won awards but doesn't mention them
?Unknown
Daily Post
I'm not 100% sure but from reading some random articles it appears to be
Articles have writers and appear to be reporting properly.
Article is 125 words long and is about Mr Raw getting a shout out on Instagram
✘No
Daily Trust
Appears to be, not 100% sure but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
Has other articles that appear to be
Entry in the article is under his old man and is only 119 words
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
@Dr_vulpes Thank you for your prompt reply and I am also sorry for my late reply too. The sources I provided establish that the subject is a prominent figure in Igbo rap, and successors have acknowledged this by referencing him. The citations in the article may not fully meet the criteria of WP:GNG but they should be sufficient to pass the WP:SNG for WP:CREATIVE
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
Delete : No other coverage to proof notable than being hospitalized due to a car accident. The rest news are interviews.--7G🍁 (🪓) 11:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Ibjaja055, that seems like a good reason to keep the article but do you have any sources saying that (i.e. that he originated Igbo rap or is an important figure)? That is what I usually see asked for in these discussions, and I think it would be helpful. I see he says it in a source from the Igbo rap article but I can't find anyone other than him saying it explicitly. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a quote from someone else rather than the newspaper saying it directly, though (although its adjacent). This article also credits him as a pioneer, although it does seem rather promotional of its (not him) subject, but that could likely be just an enthusiastic journalist. This other article seems to have a good account of the origins of Igbo rap but is a 404 and not in the internet archive. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). From a short look at the given sources it is not even clear that the term "Iberian race" ever meant something else than just "Iberian people". The article "Continental Nordic race" by the same creator was reduced to a redirect for similar problems, see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Continental_Nordic_race. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Whatever coverage there might exist in modern sources (if it exists at all), it would be in the context of describing racial essentialism as an obsolete concept of anthropology, and not to propose "Iberian race" as real and notable entity. We don't have to create articles that might have had its place as entries in an encyclopedia of the early 1900s, but not in 2024. Also, the "Features" based on outdated and non-reliable sources blatantly insinuates in Wikivoice that "Iberian race" is a thing ("is known"), so the obvious purpose of this article is to legitimize pseudoscience through the backdoor. –Austronesier (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: Wikipedia is full of various depreciated/obsolete/historical racial classifications like this one; see Category:Historical definitions of race. As long as the current scientific consensus on the non-existence of various human races is clearly stated and not contested within the article text ... I don't see a problem. These kind of 'historical definitions' can sometimes provide a useful context to interpreting the past. Vlaemink (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know about the matter but the article seems to have no problems now (other than having basically no content). It's kind of already blown up/blanked and started over as far as I can tell. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I originally G11'd this article. In addition to maintaining that this is pure advertising, I have been unable to find significant coverage of this media outlet. Source assessment:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Comment. I agree with the nominator that the article has a promotional tone and structure. However, in reviewing the sources during New Page Review, I considered the Radio Marti story and the Global Investigative Journalism Network story to constitute SIGCOV, which is why I removed the notability tag. However, I did not realize that RSN had deprecated Radio Marti a couple months ago, which would obviously make this ineligible to contribute to GNG. As a result, I won't object to deletion here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 @Oaktree b@Voorts If Radio Martí was deprecated a few months ago, but the source you're referring to predates the deprecation, it doesn't necessarily mean that all articles from Radio Martí should automatically be deprecated? or bold yes? 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was only depreciated as a source in April 2024 [34]. I would look for better sources if you have them; we could consider articles from before April 2024, but it wouldn't be the best choice. Meaning, we can use them, but in addition to other, better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was deprecated in May when I closed the RfC deprecating it. The deprecation was not limited to May 2024 forward and my understanding is that deprecation is retroactive/applies to any of the source's articles unless otherwise stated (for example, the New York Post deprecation is limited to a particular time period), so we can't consider any articles from the source. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply for the fact that I can't find extensive coverage about this news source. I've found a few book references, but those are rather limited. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The State Department, in its 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom in Cuba cites CiberCuba, in the Section III, Status of Societal Respect for Religious Freedom
This is a discussion about whether CiberCuba should have its own Wikipedia article under the guideline for companies. Specifically, this discussion is about whether there has been in-depth coverage of CiberCuba in independent, secondary, and reliable sources. Merely being cited by another source of briefly mentioned by that source does not qualify.
I found this "delete" dicussion in the top of Cibercuba wikipedia page.
I appreciate your answer with a link to "Notability", I see your point.
My answer were more in the sense to complete the table that is posted above in this disscussion, and the issues cited there.
I do not know if there are in depth articles about Cibercuba. I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia.
I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, "notability" has a specific meaning, that a topic has received in depth coverage. Being cited by Wikipedia or other sources does not establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is really interesting this Notability thing. I just found this guide Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, which give us a slighty different approach to a news site like Cibercuba and specificcally address the issue at the core of this discussion, and I quote:
"Newspapers can have a significant impact on the areas they serve, and in representing those areas to the wider world. Because its impact may be felt over a long period of time, a newspaper may be very significant, without attracting the kind of general review in other publications that would most handily fulfill Wikipedia's general notability guideline.... Additionally, while newspapers and magazines may review and critique other works of non-fiction (books, documentaries, scholarly works) it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms."
Although there are some points to consideer that are not available about Cibercuba, being and independent (censored) organization in Cuba, there are specific points that are relevant to them, among them:
- It is referred to in one or more strong reliable sources as the newspaper of record for a certain locale, in the reputational (i.e., subjective) sense.
- Its content is or has been frequently syndicated or republished in other reliable sources
- Its articles are repeatedly cited (or its scoops frequently credited) by other reliable sources
In any case I also found some articles in other media that gives specific coveraga to issues where Cibercuba team were the actual news:
I even found a Master thesis in an Spain university that it is focused in compare Cibercuba and Cubadebate (one official/goverment funded news organization):
Communication of risk and crisis in the digital press from the informative treatment: A study of the fire in the largest fuel depot in Cuba in the Cubadebate and Cibercuba media
I don't believe that the sources you shared establish notability under the notability guideline for corporations. The WikiProject Newspapers essay on notability that you cited has not gained consensus in the community. here is my assessment of the new sources:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
It appears that most sources talk about the outlet in terms of how it has been dealt with by the Castro government; there's no clear editorial standards on their website
article is about the publication's staff being kicked out of an event
14ymedio post that clearly takes a side on a political issue and is aligned with CiberCuba
It appears that most sources talk about the outlet in terms of how it has been dealt with by the Castro government; there's no clear editorial standards on their website
brief mention about Change.org petition and censorship
Even if there is not consensus the page was keep there, linked and it express an issue common to all news organizacions: "it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms, therefore I believe should be taken into account.
I found some precense of CiberCuba in TV with interviews:
- Interview of the TV program of America Teve dedicated in exclusive to some espionage documents revealed by Cibercuba, with two of their journalists: [55]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mf6xo3z9iI
I found some coverage in the officialist media of the cuban regime to criticize Cibercuba work. There are articles in .cu, domains (which are all official cuban organizations), tryong to discredit Cibercuba work. Are those critics notable coverage?
I tried to replicate your tablewith the references that were not included, but it did not work:
it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms This is the opinion of some people in the WikiProject that wrote that essay, and it's an opinion that I happen to disagree with. Notable newspapers are regularly written about in nonfiction books, magazines, other newspapers, etc. Relying on another newspaper's reporting or interviewing its journalists about a story or reporting on a story that the outlet broke are not, however, secondary, independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the US embassy, the Cuban government, and official Cuban media/outlets loyal to the Cuban state are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact checking that have editorial guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand considering the Cuban government and affiliates non-reliable, but I see no problem with the US Embassy -- I imagine they review their communications before they are sent out. I also don't think that the 14ymedio and El Nuevo Herald articles above are non-secondary: they are about the CiberCuba's staff, not their own staffs. And the 14ymedio posts taking a political stance in support does not make it non-independent: you can be independent of someone and still support them. So the El Nuevo Herald article would be a qualifying source here, I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A news web site with millions monthly pageviews Similarweb, a verified Facebook page with 3.5 million followers CiberCuba FB page, with 260K indexed pages in Google, more that 10 years producing news, where THE two US presidential candidates where interviewed in 2020 Donald Trump interview, Joe Biden interview, as well as US senantors, mayors and other tp level politicians, with their news cited by the thousands in international media, including NY Times, BBC, France 24, Washignton Post, Telemundo and many others (see links above), with hundreds of citations in Wikipedia (where coincidentally, some pages were created in great part based on references from CiberCuba), with citations in the US state department and other .GOV sites its by all standards Notable. As Dan Rather said: “The best journalists are not part of the story; they are observers who gather facts and relay them.”.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Lots of discussion but only one firm !vote for deletion so far. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two delete !votes: my nom and oaktree. Then there's a keep !vote from an IP that was blocked for being disruptive and another from an SPA that hasn't really grasped NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, two Delete "votes" and two weak Keeps is not a strong consensus. I can see why this discussion was relisted, to see if a firmer consensus can be established. LizRead!Talk!19:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any confusion as an SPA who may not fully grasp NCORP. I just want to clarify that I am not interested in being a Wikipedia editor, but I joined this discussion because I strongly believe that deleting the Wikipedia page of CiberCuba would be a significant mistake. I have outlined my reasons for keeping the page above.
That said, I would like to provide some examples before leaving the conversation. There are several pages on Wikipedia, such as Ahora (newspaper), Guerrillero (newspaper), Vanguardia (Cuban newspaper), among many others, which have not undergone the same level of scrutiny. These "outlets", are controlled by the state, the PCC (Cuban Communist Party), the UJC (Union of Young Communists), etc. They publish the "official" version of news, that are mostly propaganda or just fake news. Their Wikipedia pages have not references, external links, citations, and seems created in bulk.
leaning Redirect: I'm not seeing clear sigcov, though it looks like there is some level of coverage here, and this and this has some extremely limited coverage. There may be other useful sources via scholar.google.com which have something better but I can't view them . It's probably reasonable for Independent digital media in Cuba#Cibercuba to continue to exist -- though it needs to be properly referenced, etc etc -- and if it is then redirection there as an WP:ATD is preferable to deletion. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~05:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given a significant amount of coverage seems to come from one event involving their reporters, this seems like it might be reasonable. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This article is almost entirely based on one primary source. A search for sources found routine coverage of ambassador activities but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being successful in her career, this researcher does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC. There is no verifiable demonstration of notability in this article, most of it is promotional content without proper sources. The documentary she co-produced could be notable, but she herself does not seem so. All online articles I found related to her were either written by her or just routine announcements. Badbluebus (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion as all of the results from a WP:BEFORE search returned purely trivial mentions of the subject meaning that this article cannot possibly have the potential to pass GNG. This could be a good addition to a list page related to the field of aerospace engineering, however according to guidelines, this article does not fit Wikipedias mission. Thanks! Wibbit23(talk)02:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation. The nominator brings up the possibility of a Merge but doesn't identify a target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, the page was created by the subject of the article herself which could be grounds for WP:G11. Other than that, there is nothing really to solidify her notability other than BBC which just confirms that she worked there. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, like "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced list, most entries of which are minor, non-notable characters. Even most of the blue links are just redirects to unsourced entries in other character lists. No objection against actually adding sourced information to the Firestorm (character) article regarding notable, reoccurring adversaries such as Killer Frost, but merging would not be appropriate due the complete lack of sources here. Rorshacma (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Ordinarily, I'd Merge as an ATD but there is an argument against doing so and I'd like to hear more opinions on what should happen with this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE shows that this is barely mentioned in reliable sources which is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. There may be other elements of the novel that could be notable but this is a very minor element. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only on the 53rd page of Google Scholar results for the pinyin version of the article subject that you start academic papers without the pinyin in the title. Almost all of them are inaccessible to me, but from what is accessible, it seems there is a lot of in-depth research. For example, this Korean paper [57][58] is a 30+ page article analyzing the location from a Buddhist perspective and appears in an accredited journal indexed by the Korean Studies Information Service System and DBpia, both of which are used by western research libraries (e.g. [59][60] from the University of Toronto). Can you explain why your BEFORE research led you to conclude that literally 100s of Chinese scholarly articles with the subject in the title actually barely mention the subject? Although the article would obviously be improved by citations, WP:NEXIST seems to obviously apply here. Perhaps reaching out to editors who are more familiar with and have access to Chinese-language sources would be helpful (e.g. WP:CHINA) instead of deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions16:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that talk about the setting, but not this singular setting. The Flaming Mountains are one such example of a notable article, or even the identically named Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu) that we don't want to confuse this mountain with. I have not seen evidence that this is notable as a singular and distinct article. Jontesta (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally provided an example of an article that is about the fictional setting. The title of the Korean article is "A Buddhist reading about Mountain of Flowers and Fruits(花果山) in Journey to the West(西遊記)". That is obviously not about any real life location.
Filtering the results to also include "西遊記" ("Journey to the West") allows us to home in on again, multiple pages of articles about the fictional mountain. For example: "汤克勤. "自由家园的建构与超越——《 西游记》“花果山” 新解." 广州大学学报: 社会科学版 10, no. 3 (2011): 60-65. (via Google Translate: Tang Keqin. "The Construction and Transcendence of a Free Homeland: A New Interpretation of "Mount Huaguo" in Journey to the West." Journal of Guangzhou University: Social Sciences Edition 10, no. 3 (2011): 60-65.) and 许兆康. "试析《 西游记》 之花果山的真实地点." 神州民俗 4 (2011): 150-153. (via Google Translate: Xu Zhaokang. "An Analysis of the Real Location of the Flower-Fruit Mountain in Journey to the West." Chinese Folklore 4 (2011): 150-153) both appear to be focused on the fictional mountain foremost.
I'm not familiar enough with the research, but if the Huaguo in Jiangsu has academic consensus for being the inspiration for the literary version, then perhaps a merger is warranted as an alternative to deletion. At the very least, there appear to be many academic articles describing how Lianyungang has used the connection for tourism, though some articles seem to propose alternate locations. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions21:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of those sources discuss Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu), the real location. I still don't see how this interpretation of it justifies a second alternative article. (The Korean article doesn't focus on the right mountain.) I can see the good faith in discussing an WP:ATD like merge, but there would be very little to keep since this article is totally without sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided prima facie proof that at least three scholarly articles are primarily focused around the fictional mountain, which is usually enough to meet WP:GNG. I do not have access to these articles/do not read Korean, but given the very high amount of Google Scholar hits for both the mountain and the work, it seems very likely that more academic work on the matter exists.
"The Korean article doesn't focus on the right mountain" Not sure what you're talking about here. The title of the Korean article is "A Buddhist reading about Mountain of Flowers and Fruits(花果山) in Journey to the West(西遊記)". As far as I know, there is only one Huaguoshan in the book. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Of course, this place is fictional, but note that it has been identified with several real-life mountains and a major subject of Chinese literature. In the modern era, many mountain areas have been established as Mount Huaguo, which has become a popular tourist attraction in China. I also oppose merging with Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu), one of many inspirations for the fictional mountain, because it can be misleading. There are more than eight mountains identified as the real Mount Huaguo. This mountain is more notable or significant than Lonely Mountain or any other mountain listed in Category:Fictional mountains. Moreover, Journey to the West is not just a random work of fiction; it is one of the most significant works of Chinese literature. It is perfectly reasonable that characters or places from it have their own pages. The fictional Mount Huaguo is highly discussed by many scholars and historians, and there is a substantial amount of literature to explore and research on the subject. The sources could be improved, and here are many suggestions for scholarly articles in Chinese: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] and books [66], [67], [68], Exploring the Mystery of Huaguo Mountain, The Birth of a Flower-Fruit Mountain and news coverage [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. I can see you are a nominator for the deletion of fictional subjects according to your recent contributions. Please note that subjects from major Chinese literature are not comparable to the Western ones you may be familiar with, and they are not the same as the fictional subject articles that you've nominated for deletion through the AfD process. Sacred Chinese novels, such as Investiture of the Gods and Journey to the West, are fictional but intertwined with Chinese folk religion, becoming a national source of spirituality. For example, Sun Wukong is a fictional character in the novel, but the Monkey King is worshipped as a god in the Taoist pantheon, with many temples established in Chinese-speaking regions. These are more than just fictional characters. Yes, Chinese folk traditional culture may be confusing or unfamiliar to white people like you, but please respect Asian culture. Well, note to the nominator: it's fine if you're not knowledgeable in Chinese folklore, but please do some research before making a blind AfD nomination. Thanks. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I see a rough consensus to Keep this article but I'd like to hear more feedback on the sources brought to this discussion. Please do not make personal attacks against the participants in an AFD, especially based on race or ethnicity. Wikipedia editors are basically anonymous unless they choose to reveal information about themselves so your assumptions are not only inappropriate but likely incorrect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There is no personal attack. Referring to a Western native as 'white' is not intended as a personal attack or based on their race or ethnicity. The white is officially or legally referring to the Europeans. This is a legal and polite usage. If this usage is marked as a personal attack, trying to change it in the Oxford Dictionary won’t address the issue. Why so serious?. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you don't know anything about the background of your fellow editors unless they have chosen to disclose this, you don't know their race, ethnicity or nationality and sometimes, you don't know their gender. So don't make assumptions about them about who is "white" and who is "Asian". LizRead!Talk!08:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, it would be helpful for the nominator to respond to the newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not a one-to-one translation, but the content is close enough that when doing a side-by-side-comparison, it's obvious that they are not sufficiently independent. However, this should probvably be handled through the process for copyright violations, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Copyright violations. Andejons (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now replaced the article text with the copyvio template, but I guess the AfD process can also continue. The copyvio gets deleted either when the AfD discussion is concluded, or when a copyvio admin reacts to the template. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GusGusBrus, I've started a discussion about WP:close paraphrasing on your talk page (I should have done this earlier, to be honest), but let me also state here why the current changes to the article are insufficient.
Here's an excerpt from article Copyright: Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. In this context, "original expression" refers not only to the sentence-level structure but also to the overall composition of the work, which remains largely unchanged. While ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, Sundberg's selection and arrangement of ideas constitute a form of creative expression.
I agree that there should be an article about this topic. However, if the article relies (largely) on a single, concise source, it becomes difficult to stray far from the original composition. The rewritten article should be based on a more diverse set of sources to avoid this. Please notice, that even if the article was rewritten today, the copyright-infringing versions should still be purged from the page history. This is why I believe it would be better to let the AfD process run its course and start a new draft with a clean history. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject charted but WP:NMUSICIAN does not guarantee notability. It still comes down to sourcing. There is nothing I can find in-depth about the subject that would be consdiered reliable. There is also a lot of press and churnalism such as this and this which are regurgitations of the same thing published on the same day but different publications. The Billboard reference only verifies the charting which was done on a collaboration with another artist. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, so glad this made it here Thank you so much CNMall41. Before going into sourcing and notability, I have started using my alt account for reviving (mostly African) articles I feel like the subject is notable and deleted under WP:G5. After this, I'm moving on to reviving Pabi Cooper.
With that being said, yes, I do agree that only 2 source are the same which is what publications like MSN and allAfrica do, they "re-publish" what's already out there and credit the publisher. The subject did chart on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs,[1] and again on the UK Afrobeats Singles Chart.[2] Keep in mind that he is credited as the primary artist on the song per media notes.[3] JZyNO has been subject of the news multiple times here,[4] and here,[5] just to mention a few. He was also nominated for multiple Liberia Music Awards.[6][7] and Telecel Ghana Music Award at the 25th edition (2024).[8]This nomination is based on the two identical sources, charting collaboration (not sure what's wrong with that tho), and sourcing lacking depth. The cited references above are enough to sum up clear WP:SIGCOV as they are in depth and the subject do pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. Starting to wonder if the nominator performed WP:BEFORE. dxneo (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that having a page you created sent to deletion can be frustrating, however please WP:AGF. Saying that you "wonder if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE" is a veiled accusation that I lack the competency to properly review a page for notability. This is not away to get your contention across in a deletion discussion. I will respond to your notability points in a minute once I look through the sources you provided. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the nomination, charting does not grant inherent notability for a musician under WP:NMUSICIAN. The wording is "may be notable," not "is" notable. For the awards, they are nominations, not wins so not even relevant for WP:MUSICBIO. The first two sources you pointed out only verify charting. They are not significant, just verification. Three is from Apple Music so this cannot be used for notability. The fourth and seventh are the two I pointed out that are WP:CHURNALISM. Five is an interview and six and eight are just verifications of his award nominations. I see no significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologies for that earlier statement. However, respectfully, it really looks like you are not familiar with WP:MUSICBIO as it states that "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." So I don't know what you mean when you say "nominations are not relevant." You then said "charting is not inherent," what's there to inherit when it's his song? (rhetorical question) Those sources are in-depths, this is not a GA standard article, it's somewhere between Start and Stub-class, hope you understand. Apple Music source is for verifying that the subject is the primary artist. Those reliable sources clearly discuss the subject where he's from and so on,which is what's most important. (SIGCOV) Trying to dismiss the sources by saying "they are just…" is not the way to go, because I was radequately eferencing every statement. Again, the subject clearly pass WP:GNG, as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I realize it is frustrating, but please be WP:CIVIL. Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award." So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin. I said that charting does not give inherent notability. You keep saying the coverage is significant but have not shown how. Saying it "clearly passes WP:GNG" is a fallacy by assertion at this point without being able to demonstrate how interviews, churnalism, and simply verifications are considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't know why you keep saying be CIVIL, as if I'm using foul language, this is a discussion and I'm participating. Not everyone can be nominated for the Grammys, and thousands are notable without a Grammy nomination. However, every country/region got their major awards. Example, in South Africa, we have multiple awards organizations which are considered major, something like South African Music Awards. Every region got their own alternatives. U.S. got Grammys, Canada got Junos, and so on. Hope you understand. dxneo (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. No significant coverage of Ken Ross himself or his work, and it doesn't seem as if his work has been a substantial part of any significant exhibition. Most coverage consists of brief mentions, primarily in relation to his notable mother, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross or to the foundation. Mooonswimmer00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there's some mentions of what he's doing now, but it's all in interviews. Looks like what does get mentioned is that he founded the Foundation, so maybe if coverage of that can be found, that could have its own article.
Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Benares brass" isn't a thing; it's just brass items made/sold in Varanasi. Just like there isn't a page for "Benares trinkets", there doesn't need to be one for Benares brass. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that 'Benares brass' isn't a thing. At least, not in the metallurgical sense, as a particular brass alloy. I may be wrong - place-specific alloys do sometimes turn up, owing to oddities of local material supply.
But I'm not convinced that 'brass and brasswork of Benares' isn't a thing, just based on the sources already attached to the article. Is brass manufacture a significant and distinctive industry specific to Benares? Now that's certainly a thing, and there are many such locations where particular forms of metalworking are both distinct (the place is significant to the craft of brassworking) and locally economically important (brass working is significant to the place). On my own doorstep, an article on 17th to 19th century brassworking around Bristol and the Avon valley would be very welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to hear more opinions and also feedback on the Merge proposal. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Mughals and Marathas have been at war between 1526-1779, this article lists a collection of WP:RS battles and also the cronological events. Every history and major source agress there was a long lasting war between Mughals and Rajputs, there is no denying it. I don't see a reason this WP:Notable historic article has been nominated for deletion! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Existence of this article is an improvement and provides for easier viewing for interested people. The article title is phrased plurally; Mughal–Rajput wars. Not being a made up single conflict. Deleting this article is an inappropriate course of action for the problem. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-There were surely wars between Rajputs and Mughals and this article summarizes that but what is wrong in this is its tone and possible same content from other articles. All it needs is an improvement of in depth details about topic and a good tone. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list article has been orphaned since its inception in 2015, and is badly in need of formatting and citations. It has not been properly edited since 2022, and seems to generate no interest. It should be deleted. — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This hyper-specific list seems to be someone's attempt at building a technical reference. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. nf utvol (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]