The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KEEP the article subject is notable, i have seen multiple resources in media, and the app has more than one million downloads on playstore and appstore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.223.148.55 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The "KEEP"s carry zero P&G weight, but we don't have quorum to delete yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎23:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I deproDed the page. I have seen other years taken to AfD. But why? This is a pretty standard way to approach history of television by country. Mexico has them, Korea has them, and so on. Turkey is a major country with a long history of television. What's the issue? Non-notable, how? I would !vote Keep but that would imply restoring all the other years. But I don't understand. It's very easy to source every event with books and/or news. And for general coverage, just open Yanardağoğlu, Eylem, Television in Turkey: Local Production, Transnational Expansion and Political Aspirations, Springer International Publishing, 2020; "The Transformation of the Media System in Turkey: Citizenship, Communication, and Convergence", Springer International Publishing, 2021; The Regulation of Turkish Network Industries. (2022), Springer International Publishing. A source for each and every programme broadcast is easily found. I am seriously confused.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep it vote keep. I don’t think that would implying restoring other years as some years in television are more notable than others. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK: Keep and restore all years. This year in Turkish television is notable and so are apparently all years I checked, given the existence of sources for individual events and about trends/years in the Turkish history of television. Also for navigation reasons.and procedural reasons; targeting one year after another to delete the whole range of articles (that precisely make sense as a whole) brick by brick is not a good idea when the general topic is notable.
some years in television are more notable than others. Maybe (I don't think so) but then, it seems you want to have ALL years of Turkish television deleted and I am very much against that idea. Is it your idea?
Note: there are only 4 years left in the category. The ones that have been deleted lately were, if I am not mistaken, in the 2000s and 2010s The other years haven't been created yet.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is about the 2004 article. To restore articles previously deleted at AfD, please see WP:DRV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎15:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, consider my !vote a simple/single Keep then (but restoring other years should also be done); this is part of a set and is justified in terms of navigation, that's what I mean. Notwithstanding the individual notability of this page, deleting random years one by one without considering this type of page in general or the whole is not a good approach. Also may I remind the nominator that WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am sorry but, again, I am very confused, how is this overspecific? This is pretty standard: have a look at Category:2004 in television by country please. Again, if you think Turkey has a less substantial history of television than, say, Brazil or Japan (I don't think so), considering a different organisation and redirect years to (not-yet-existing) pages about decades might make sense, but just deleting that year for that country (although it can be easily sourced) seems extremely confusing to me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the dire state of the article (and yes, I'm going by the current state of the article, and I'll explain why shortly) shows that it was a bad idea to start a page about 2004 in Turkish television. The "years in country" absolutely need to start with the basic year in the country, in this case 2004 in Turkey, and then branch out when size dictates so. Moreover, it would make sense to branch out to "2004 in Turkish media" before further sub-division into television, radio, cinema, press etc. As for other similar pages existing, I checked a dozen of the entries in the nabvbox, and most of them are embarrassingly bad. Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd fork of Vehicle registration plates of China. Another editor redirected it there, but was reverted with the (dubious, in my opinion) reason that "zh wiki has two separate articles". Most of the content here duplicates Vehicle registration plates of China and I can find no compelling reason to keep a fork. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to retain the functionality of the language switcher from zh.wp. The xtools reports for the zh articles are pretty interesting: the vehicle registration plates article is slightly older, but the civilian vehicle registration plates article has fifteen times as many inlinks and sees three times as much traffic. Both have similar numbers of edits and distinct editors. This isn't an argument for or against any course of action here, but the fork is somewhat mystifying. Folly Mox (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BASIC. Lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Sole acceptable source is from BBC Scotland Business news reporting on his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association. Not sufficient to demonstrate notability as a "mention in passing (example given at BASIC is "John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University")" AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets. Only about 30-40 awarded every year in a country of 67 million people. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As we established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Shearman, honours, which are routine for British ambassadors to receive from their employer, do not eliminate the requirements for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We established no such thing. Only a minority of diplomats or even ambassadors have high honours such as the CMG. You made a patently false claim by citing only very senior ambassadors who do have such honours and the AfD was closed before I could answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not false. A very large number of British ambassadors have received honours from their employer, many with fairly unremarkable careers. That doesn't override BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only instance of IDONTLIKEIT is your approach to the requirement for significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. AusLondonder (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two most recent sources you've added are primary. I actually did see the government sources before nominating but I know that per BASIC "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing some routine announcements about his appointments, but nothing independent, secondary, and significant. And content following "According to the official biography" is obviously not independent or secondary. Receiving an award also doesn't mean the subject is exempt from notability requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass BASIC, see e.g. Buenos Aires Times (158 words), Nation Thailand (327 words), MercoPress (176 words), VietnamPlus (about some sort of award he received from the Vietnam government, 100 words), Press and Journal (287 words), Bangkok Post (1000+ words w/quotes), etc. Also, if everyone failing ANYBIO but meeting BASIC gets an article, and everyone meeting ANYBIO has to pass BASIC to get an article, that effectively means that ANYBIO is 100% wholly worthless. Or maybe, just maybe, there is a purpose in having such criteria, such as that categories of people winning major awards should be complete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A point I've made many times. If ANYBIO is routinely ignored then what on earth is the point of it? The point of it is to catch people who have had careers in unglamorous occupations but who have received high honours from their country, in recognition that, glamorous or not, they have made a significant contribution to the world. Wikipedia is not a reality TV talent contest, but a serious encyclopaedia that should cover such people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except WP:ANYBIO explicitly, unambiguously states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It does not in any sense override BASIC requirements. It's a guide that indicates a likelihood of notability, not a free pass. If you want that to change, feel free to propose it instead of bringing up reality television at every AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the sources identified, I can't see them contributing to notability. Interviews are primary sources. A brief mention of his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association is not an acceptable source as I pointed out in the nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing all of those sources, especially the Bangkok Post 1,300-word feature on 'The workaholic ambassador', which contains over 700 words on Kent that is not quotes, is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware what it says. I'm pointing out that if it's sneered at whenever it's mentioned then it's utterly pointless, which suggests it's intended to be taken into consideration. What do you think it's there for precisely? Don't actually think I've mentioned reality television before! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable station, also strongly sets off my "this is AI" senses. The glossy promotional tone screams LLM. The sole source in the article verifies nothing beyond the fact that it exists. I'd redirect this to Northern Line myself, but I'm sure that would be contested with an edit summary saying "take it to AfD", so here we are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Batticaloa line if sources can't be found (has anyone attempted to look for sources in the local language?). Whether the article was or wasn't written by AI and/or whether it does or does not have a glossy promotional tone (I don't see it myself) are irrelevant to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain if this subject is notable so bringing here for consensus. The claim of notability rests on the awards the subject has won, and his featuring as one of the 100 most influential Africans. To me this seems pretty flimsy but other editors may feel it’s sufficiently solid to pass. Mccapra (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of the subject's claim to notability rests on him being CEO of Moniepoint Inc., and he's been profiled by a few publications because of that (discounting those that are more obviously promotional like the Forbes contributor article). It looks like he meets WP:GNG on the basis of the published work that profiles him alongside other entrepreneurs in the field. Reconrabbit18:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was a fatal accident but wasn't significantly covered. I can only find a (very) few articles about the crash posted at the time it happened and it was never mentioned again. This was not enough to make the article pass WP:GNG. Lâm (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't regard this as WP:SIGCOV. And this seems to be about a namesake photographer aged 29 in 2022 and not a restauranteur born in 1973 as detailed in this article. Ft.com is behind a pay wall so need more details to assess. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources on the page are unreliable, dead domains, page not found and non-secondary independent. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBIO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as writer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure why the rush to delete this. Several of the books look to have healthy citations in GS, and Russ Woodroofe has found multiple reviews. Merely having dead links on the article is not a deletion rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always make sure to preserve articles and only consider deletion after thorough investigation. I would advise other editors to follow the same approach: take your time, conduct careful research, and then provide your comments. Avoid rushing the process. Thank you--- Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overt failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 6 games in Japan's third league being his claim to notability. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia only provides press release. This full name is very common, so it's possible to find namesakes unless people search in kanji. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆15:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Point 1 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. The Indianapolis 500 is the oldest and most important American auto race. Please consider the deletion discussions here, here, here, and here. These are the first four I located, and in each case the consensus has been to keep the articles of early 20th century drivers - I believe this is due to the clear notability of the event and/or the achievement of competing in it, and because of the fact that sources likely exist, but may be harder to locate and access due to the time period of their creation.
Delete. NMOTORSPORT is subordinate to SPORTCRIT, which requires GNG be met and a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article. Passing mentions with trivial details and routine event coverage do not count as SIGCOV, but that seems to be the only material that exists on this person per the (non-RS) blog post, which repeats what the official Indianapolis Speedway historian (not independent) could find on Jones: The story of MC Jones, the man from Conwy, has been morphed with Milton Jones who died 80 years ago. They share the common Welsh surname, but as resident historian Donald Davidson at the Indianapolis Speedway points out, it's a case of history not keeping up with the Joneses."MC Jones and Milton Jones, it has often been assumed, is the same person. MC Jones drove in the 1925 race, and his name was Melville. They are two different people," affirms Davidson from his office at the track. "There are those who have assumed it is one and the same and it isn't."In 1925 there was a fellow named Harold Skelly. He qualified a 'Skelly Special', which was a Fronty Ford, which means it was basically a dirt track car with a special head developed by Louis Chevrolet and Frontenac, nicknamed a 'Fronty'. As Skelly was deemed not up to the job, MC Jones stepped in, and I think most of his experience was in boat racing." That's nowhere near SIGCOV, and if that is all the official Indy 500 historian could dig up then that's very strong proof nothing further exists. JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source has 280 words of coverage devoted to Jones – I do not see how that is not significant coverage (i.e. meets SPORTCRIT). There's an obit here, and it seems a number of other mentions from Maine papers and from when he competed at the Indy 500. If OldRacingCars.com is considered reliable you arguably have another piece of sigcov here. You could certainly write a decent bio here, and I don't see why we wouldn't want to have a potential upper-start-class bio on someone who competed in one of the most famous races ever – I don't see who would be benefited by deleting. To suggest that one can just disregard all the sub-NSPORT criteria just by saying 'fails GNG' is really ridiculous – what point is there then in having them if saying two words makes them irrelevant! I'd lean towards keeping. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 From Wikipedia:Notability (sports): "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline." (my emphasis). I'm not giving an opinion either way whether the sourcing/coverage provided is sufficient in this instance, but it is a requirement that articles about athletes/drivers meet the GNG. Meeting WP:NMOTORSPORT is an indication that they likely do meet GNG, but is not itself enough to warrant being kept. A7V2 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that it says that – but seriously, how is it helpful to have that criterion if every single article one creates on that presumption of "likely notability" will be deleted if they don't immediately show GNG, no matter the circumstance and even if they provide one piece of SIGCOV? (since GNG needs two) BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this topic passes WP:GNG, it would then be a classic WP:NOPAGE case. This article is largely a compilation of blog posts, online comments, and celebrity gossip reporting. There may (or, quite possibly, may not) be a place for two sentences about this to be included at David Cross, but that's it -- at most. EEng22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with EEng that this is mostly gossip and does not deserve its own page. I think a good solution is a sentence about the Chipwreck producer, and maybe another sentence could be added to the David Cross page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpuddin (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As the creator and major contributor to the article, I narrowly (albeit still) encourage the retainment of this page. I had originally made this article where Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)#Response towards Cross used to look like this. I moved most of that content to its own article, adding Chipwrecked content as well. I guess I underestimated WP:SIGCOV; although there is commentary of blog activity, the sources on this article are generally fine (expect maybe the ScreenRant), so verifiability issues aren't a problem. If this doesn't deserve to be its own standalone article, it should be a redirect to David_Cross#Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
May not be notable; it got 3 reviews in 2009 from obscure gaming blogs, got no coverage from RS. I think it should be merged into the article on the developer. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waxworker. Appspy's review is on the weaker side of significant coverage, but together with the other two detailed sources, they make it just enough for a potential suitably covered article with gameplay and reception. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I didn't know these sources were reliable, but I see that they are. I don't know how to formally withdraw the nomination but I agree with you all. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Deepali Sathe is a well known singer, you can search google, this article has significant coverage, i think added to article deletation by mistake. :[[User:Mrofrepigid| Mrofrepigid] (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not three reliable sources about the subject person to pass WP:SIGCOV. We almost never have associate professors who pass WP:PROF automatically. The remainder of the arguments are not proven by the preponderance of the evidence. Perhaps this article is WP:TOOSOON? Disclosure: my domestic partner used to work at the same large institution. Bearian (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only played a handful of matches in Bulgaria and nothing even close to passing WP:SPORTBASIC. The best source that I can find is Sportal, which is nowhere near enough depth to warrant his own article. Castañeda hasn't been seen since 2018 so I see little point in incubating in draft either as future notability is doubtful. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)20:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS2022 put this rule to death, though. I've also read somewhere else that it is because unfortunately, not every footballer receives significant coverage, even if they have played an international match. See the epilogue from this AfD for example. I understand how difficult sometimes to find something that will pass GNG for such footballers, especially from low-level countries or pre-internet topic. That's why I've been having a difficult time cleaning them up recently. I can say different generation/era and countries provide different (significant) news coverage. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆12:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pak Chol-jin is from North Korea, a country without transparent media. There are few if any similar countries in the world, Eritrea being one. When it comes to the many tiny islands around the world, there is a wholly different reason for the scarcity of sources; very low population and comparatively low interest in football (or other subjects). Geschichte (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hey! Thanks for helping out at the article! Sources are already there, also third party sources like SocialBlade, ViewStats, Media reports from different Organizations. What kind of resources do you else think of? Thanks a lot and have a nice day! 2003:D6:3F23:1200:54A4:D276:3D6E:1E93 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For one thing, not have the sources be absolutely unfiltered PR?! That's not how you format footnotes in any way shape or form. Subject hasn't even breathed near 20,000 subscribers and rarely updates. Nate•(chatter)22:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Zero notability, and spammed across various language editions of Wikipedia (Cebuano, Spanish, Turkish, Serbian, Latin, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, etc). toweli (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played some games in Japan's third league and 110 minutes in Singapore. I'm not very swayed by the status as a tall footballer. This is curious information that belongs in a list. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment jsports - Hatanka tries volleyball, only coverage on him is "(former soccer J-Leaguer), who is 207 cm tall". gekisaka - some info on him. soccer-king.jp - one sentence on his promotion to the 1st team. Dougal18 (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"Consistent", what does that mean? The Ja:wiki have six sources, published by: Vissel Kobe, Vissel Kobe, FC Osaka, FC Osaka, Twitter, Vissel Kobe. Nothing even worth considering. Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I struggled to find sources as firstly there seems to be a song or dance of the same name and secondly the article does not say what the Turkish name is. I found a couple of mentions in Google Scholar but not enough to show notability. I don’t know that part of Turkey so happy to be proved wrong if you know better Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Leaning towards keep because I believe this is more of a transliteration issue. The mountain range is easily confusable with the phrase "Armenian dance". The Armenian translation of Հայկական Պար Լեռներ did yield some results (129,000 on google). It may go by other names such as "Atsptkunq", "Sukavet" or "Bardoghi" according to this [7]. This source also refers to the mountains as "Atsptkunq" and has more precise geographic location confirming the mountain range is near the Araxes river. This source again mentions "Atsptkunq" and the fact that they were renamed "Aghre Dagh" by Turkish inhabitants. In any case, this mountain range does exist, its more so deciphering the correct name of it in Armenian and Turkish. If we can find some native speakers, I'm sure they could sift through the sources and improve the article. Archives908 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Archives908 I am not a native speaker of Turkish but are you sure that "Aghre Dagh" is the name in Turkish? Because I have not yet managed to find that on a map and surely if it was a range the second word would be “Dağlar” wouldn’t it? I don’t know what a ridge is in Turkish.
I am a native speaker of English and if it was a ridge I would have thought it would be called “Something Ridge” in English. But is it a ridge do you know? Certainly we don’t call it “Atsptkunq” as we cannot pronounce that!
Also the text is confusing because Mt Ararat is east of the source of the Aras River not west.
Ah I now suspect that the name in English is Aras Mountains, for which we already have an article. So perhaps this article should be merged into that one or redirected? @North8000: - why do you think they may be different? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a native speaker of Turkish either. That's why I said in my comment above, "If we can find some native speakers, I'm sure they could sift through the sources and improve the article". Also, just because you may not be able to pronounce certain words, it does not mean that the range isn't called by that name. There are tens of thousands of articles on English Wikipedia with interesting names, most of which, may be hard to pronounce for native English speakers. But that is not justification enough to delete such articles. Unfortunately, I have nothing more to offer this conversation. I was able to find alternate names of the range, now its up to someone who speaks native Armenian and/or Turkish to help us verify the WP:RS we have. I still maintain my Keep vote on the basis that 1) the range exists 2) this is most likely a matter of transliteration 3) there are sources for these names out there, we just need help deciphering them. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Atsptkunq" is not merely hard to pronounce for a native English speaker, it is impossible! I just asked a native Turkish speaker and she had no idea how to pronounce it either. So I am sure that is not the name in English or Turkish. We already have an article for what you call Sukavet in Armenian namely Mount Kösedağ (Ağrı). We also have Mount Zor but that does not exist in other language Wikipedias so I don’t know what that is called in Armenian. I have asked for help from Wikiproject Mountains because as far as I know Wikiproject Turkey is not very active. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your "friend who speaks Turkish" does not constitute WP:RS. Again, Atsptkunq is probably a transliteration of the Armenian or Turkish word. The English name may not even be 100% accurate if there was translations errors. I used Google translate, and I am unsure of the accuracy of it. However, I found about four names in total for this range. That is why we need editors who can read Armenian/Turkish fluently to sift through each of the English names AND their Armenian/Turkish translations to cross-check and verify the correct name of the range -or- to verify if the range already belongs to a another range (ideally, with RS to back it up). Since neither of us are fluent in these languages, its unwise for us to determine with certainty that this range does not exist by any of these names. Archives908 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged presumably because I raised the concern about a possible duplicate article when doing the NPP review on Aras Mountains. I've been off the grid on a trip and now am only about 5% back on the grid for the next two days. I'd be happy to work on helping figure this this out from a geographic standpoint (and it seems like that should be possible) but could only do that starting 2 days from now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is why I pinged you. No rush as not a fast moving subject. I should also have pinged @Riehaiqu: who wrote that Aras Mountains and Haykakan Par are the same thing. If that is correct then an alternative to deletion would be to merge this article into Aras Mountains. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Aras Mountains. This is just me doing my best regarding suggesting what to do. If someone has more insight/knowledge than me on this and thinks otherwise I would defer to their judgement. I tried a deeper dive on this. The IMO the nameAras Mountains isn't on totally firm ground but taking it descriptively as a minimum it's a real area with mountains and ridges in it. I've found where Haykakan Par refers to some things / places in that area but nothing that refers to it as a mountain range or to the overall area encompassed by the Aras Mountains area. I used the word "merge" but the second half of the article is about some general/ cultural / political stuff for general eastern Turkey (not about the subject of the article) and it looks like nothing in the rest of the article is sourced. (including the selection of and the caption of the photo) and so IMO it's best not to bring any of the material over in a merge. Again, this is just me doing my best regarding suggesting what to do. If someone has more insight/knowledge than me on this and thinks otherwise I would defer to their judgement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback! I am not opposed to a merge either, but I am still leaning on a Keep vote (temporarily). I believe rather than this article being nominated for deletion, it would have been better if the nominator brought this to the talk page where we could have taken the time to do a thorough review and potentially reach a WP:CON. Our dilemma here is, we need a native speaker of Turkish and Armenian in order to conduct a search of all 5 or 6 of the potential names of this ridge to better determine if 1) this is an independent geological formation of notability 2) if it is in fact a duplication of Aras Mountains or 3) if this is a transliteration issue and the ridge goes by a completely different Armenian or Turkish name that we all may be unaware of. I believe a deletion or even a merge may be premature considering we have been unsuccessful to determine this with absolute certainty. I don't think keeping this article (for now) and conducting more research would be a bad thing. It could always be re-nomed for deletion once we have more clarity. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability since 2011. Both sources lack independence from the subject. The singer doesn't appear to have performed with any major opera companies or theaters; performing largely at third and fourth tier minor organizations. Not likely to pass WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian I'm not being harsh. The biggest venue Gundunas has performed with is San Jose Opera. She also appeared with even smaller companies in that area in CA, and in the one review where she is the main subject in your google news search is described as a "restaurant singer" in the headline. Part of how we assess opera singers (or actors) for notability is by where they have performed per relevant WP:SNG guidelines. San Jose has a tiny opera company that gets reviews in the local city press, but it isn't a major company with a national or international reputation. It doesn't usually get press in other parts of California even, which CA's bigger companies (San Francisco, Los Angeles, the former Opera Pacific when it was active, etc.) do. Generally when evaluating WP:NACTOR for significant theater works we consider venue. An opera singer performing at the Metropolitan Opera, Lyric Opera of Chicago, Houston Grand Opera, and San Francisco Opera (the "Big Four" of American opera) whose productions get reviewed in the international press and are often recorded or filmed is notable. Outside of these, second tier companies like New York City Opera, Los Angeles Opera, Washington National Opera, Opera Philadelphia, Santa Fe Opera, etc. are potentially notable, particularly if they have been recorded or gotten press outside of their local news which happens intermittently. Beyond these, local theater performances like Opera San Jose generally don't rise to the level of significance for their performers. They are lower level theater companies, of interest to their individual city but not elsewhere. This type of assessment is relevant to the SNG guideline for performers where we generally discredit appearances at lower tier theaters as non-notable; which is the approach used by the WP:WikiProject Theatre, Wp:WikiProject Musical Theatre, and WP:WikiProject Opera communities. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person's performances have not been in starring roles in long-running, major-market productions, and, unless they are all missing from the article, she has not had reviews of her performances in multiple significant roles. She has not originated roles in notable works. She does not feature in major roles in notable recordings. She does not seem to have won any Tony Awards, Olivier Awards or similar. I would expect a notable opera singer to have played dozens of major roles in operas at international major houses. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same issues as the podcast even if it's not quite as bad. Coverage is trivial and routine, there is nothing that meets all 4 criteria (independent, secondary, in-depth, reliable). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would honestly say that the PinkNews article probably meets all of the criteria. It's clearly independent from Schofield, it's a secondary source for what it's talking about (her relationship with Matt Rife), it's known for being reliable, and it's relatively in-depth about the relationship between them the claims she makes about her relationship with Rife even if most of what it says specifically about her is that she's a YouTuber, hosts the Cancelled podcast, and, according to her, "has an 'outie' vagina". benǝʇᴉɯ02:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sourcing on the subject is the unit talking about itself. That is neither secondary nor independent. MILUNIT is not a notability guideline and so per WP:N has zero sway here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She passes WP:NATH with seventh place in pentathlon at the 1970 Commonwealth Games but fails GNG. A search through the British Newspaper Archives just found brief mentions and sporting results. Dougal18 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the NATH guideline is pretty conservative compared to the others at NSPORT, so it's worth trying multiple search engines if you can't find sources at one. For example NATH says that 4th-placers at the Olympics can't necessarily be presumed to have coverage, but I've yet to find one without GNG sources after searching so far. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I've searched even pre-WWII Olympics to see if there's a non-notable 4th placer and have yet to find one. I agree that in general prewar Olympics were less notable, I just don't think the line should have been drawn at 4th place. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources above from the newspaper archive are fine, the first two are better than the third. Should have enough for notability Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No notable wrestler. Just worked on an independent level. The article has sources, most of them are WP:ROUTINE results, others passing mentions. Looking for sources, he only has passing mentions on a few events 1HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for additional assessments from editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!17:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching through sport.sk archives all I could find were a blurb on the Olympics, brief results/participation announcements, and the subject talking about himself. Nothing but stats from ifortuna.sk, nike.sk; zero hits from tipsport.sk; and stats hits for a different Michal Malák on hokejportal.net. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes it notable though? Looking at the sources for the other page, half of the sources appear to be dead, one is just a wikipedia self citation, and one simply just confirms that the album exists. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reel Weak Keep, and use sources from the article for their lone album Back to the Real, which strangely is more developed than the band's article. Though I don't have access to the true chart pages at Billboard, their album made a small dent in the R&B charts and they had two mid-level hit singles. They got some minor coverage back in the day for being discovered by Warren G, as seen in a source used at the album article. This is reel close though, and I won't argue with anyone who votes differently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a smalltown film festival, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film festivals. As always, film festivals are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to have reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG -- but this is referenced to just one hit of purely local coverage and two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and a Google search mostly found glancing namechecks of this in coverage of films or filmmakers rather than coverage about this. There's also an ambiguity problem here, as there's a Canadian film festival (without an article yet) that's officially just the "Hamilton Film Festival" but does sometimes get mistakenly called the "Hamilton International Film Festival" -- and a significant number of the hits in the Google search meant the Canadian one and were thus irrelevant here. I also had to unlink almost every single inbound wikilink to this article (except the disambiguatory hatnote in New Zealand's Hamilton Underground Film Festival, which is now the only inbound left), because every single actor or film that was linking here as a "notable because awards" play was referenced to a source that explicitly verified that the Canadian one was the intended topic. Since I'm still waiting for my restored access to Newspapers.com, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to other databases of archived US media coverage than I've got (or unbroken Newspapers.com) can find more than I was able to find on Google, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small but heartfelt festival in a small town. Of the 4 sources cited by User:Mushy Yank, #1 is very brief, I couldn't access #2, #3 & #4 are "human interest" stories about the local brothers who founded the festival, but say little about the festival itself. I did finally find a film listing for 2024, and nearly all are short films. There are two full length documentaries but only one even had an entry in IMDB, with very little info, and it had nothing in a web search (except its own web site). I found announcements for the festival in local media (e.g. Colgate college newsletter, Madison County tourism). That's all. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find no independent coverage of this database. It does appear useful, but appears to be too soon to be a notable product. A BEFORE shows it's in use and blurbs about how the tool works, but it's from the tool itself.
Keep it, FactGrid was and is in a way part the official roll out of Wikibase as a common database software. The project was an official collaboration between Wikimedia and the University of Erfurt in 2018, and it is now probably the biggest Wikibase community outside Wikidata. The integration into Germany's National Research Data Infrastructure in 2023 has been the biggest move towards the institutionalization of the database. The platform is now an official recommendation for historical projects to use in Germany. It has projects in Berkeley, Barcelona, Budapest and Paris - with a 1 Million database objects and projects that participate with budgets up to € 900.000 it should no longer be a small website. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was the one who originally WP:BLARed the article, and I admit I probably should have responded to the contesting of the redirection and maybe dropped a note or something, but I've essentially treated it as a contested PROD and did not follow up due to personal reasons. I had more or less forgotten about it by the time I had more time. I do stand by my original assessment, and still believe a redirect is the most appropriate option. While there are some sources, the depth of coverage in independent reliable sources (reliable in a general context) is highly limited, and I do not believe it would be possible to write a standalone article of any length from mostly those sources. In fact, with the state of available sources, I don't believe we would be able to expand much more than maybe 2 or 3 times the current text at University_of_Erfurt#University_projects. While that would be 10% of the current article, I do not believe that would be excessive to the point of being proscribed by WP:DUE, especially if other parts are also expanded. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus, a source analysis would be helpful as this is what ultimately influences decisions about notability and whether this article should be retained or changed to a Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!17:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article presents a number of issues. Firstly, it was originally created by a connected contributor (Wickedmagpie is the same name as a production company, Wicked Magpie productions, who worked with the subject on a local Chicago TV show she apparently presented). Secondly, the article contains unverifiable information, most notably her last name "Haydock" (I can find nothing whatsoever that mentions this as her name). Third, the article subject fails WP:BIO. The article as it stood a few minutes ago was puffed up with bare URLs to websites with no mention of her, the link in the article to Fox Sports is dead and I can find no evidence of it existing online. The link that purports to be to Men's Health is archived, but Internet Archive keeps timing out... additionally, I'm pretty certain www.mh.co.za is not the official Men's Health domain. I'm not really sure what is going on here. She is a real person, but I'm not sure this article is presented with verifiable facts. Even if the Men's Health link was correct, the title seems to indicate it was written by the subject herself, making it a Primary source. My WP:BEFORE has turned up no reliable sources. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Her talent seems to be her physical assets. Her roles in listed film and television appearances don't seem to be more than a walk-on. Listed as #82 on a list of the world's most beautiful women puts her pretty far down on the list. — Maile (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
2. Asteria de Sa, "Memories of my golden years of athletics," St. Joseph's Convent School Alumni Karachi 1997
The first reference seems to be about this article which is about the town of Wellesley, Massachusetts, seemingly completely unrelated? The second reference is just an unlinked book or essay title, and searching for that title on Google or newspapers.com yields no results. The article creator User:Rzafar has not edited since 2018. The lede says "She was the first national champion in long jump" and the body mentions Karachi, so maybe one place to look would be a results archive for the Pakistani Athletics Championships in 1948 when it was founded? --Habst (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources in the Wikipedia article mention the name Asteria de Sa, which means it definitely is a hoax. ミラへぜ (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: cannot find any evidence (both webpages and news) to suggest that it is WP:NOTABLE or deserving of an encyclopaedia article. Only results were info pages about it, Tripadvisor etc. - seems to be just an ordinary country club - see WP:MILL. MolecularPilot09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NLIST. Home video releases of Angel are already covered in each of the season articles, see for example: Angel season 4#DVD release. Only references of note are short news announcements by TVShowsOnDVD.com ([9], [10]), a source of questionable reliability.
There are some articles I found about the streaming versions: [11], [12]. Those can fit quite easily to the home video sections on the season articles. Still, I don't think those sources are enough to meet notability. Mika1h (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, there's no reason the video release elements from other articles can't be put together in a list like this. In practice... why bother? In a substantially streaming world, these lists are less important than they used to be. I would actually recommend if we want to clean up Angel articles, they be un-redirected and referenced. Like many older television shows, references are print, not as much digital, so it's non-trivial to demonstrate notability, even when it clearly exists. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A POV fork that violates WP:BLP by describing as "fact" a presumed death of a living person. If Sinwar was really killed, then a sentence or two would be more enough in his BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bro. Israel Foreign Minister release minutes ago just confirmed the death: [13] - “The master murderer Yahya Sinwar, who is responsible for the massacre and atrocities of October 7, was killed today by IDF soldiers.” Very much a failed WP:RUSH deletion attempt… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as the IDF shouldn't be taken as an RS, almost all (if not all) of their claims of assasinating leaders were always correct Abo Yemen✉16:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious on what the criterion would be: while the Israeli Government is obviously not an RS, if they were to announce that a DNA match was made -- would this AfD be retracted or would that need to wait a Hamas communiqué? NAADAAN (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: I agree that the article was made prematurely but Yedioth Ahronoth claimed there was a dental match with the forensic report published on Channel 12. While there's still room for doubt, by law of averages you'd expect he'd be dead especially considering the pictures of Sinwar shown on Channel 12. Perhaps rename to "Alleged killing of Yahya Sinwar" until Hamas releases something announcing his "martyrdom". NAADAAN (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has already been tentatively confirmed and will be further confirmed in the next few hours. By the end of this discussion, his death will be a fully confirmed fact. DantheAnimator16:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not hear yourself right now? How many articles are covering the “unconfirmed” and/or “confirmed” death? Checks Google, easily…100+? The answer is yes. I really suggest withdrawing this AFD before it turns into more of a, forgive my French, a shit-show, than it already is. You are a good editor, but this is not the hill to stand and/or “die” on, if you know what I mean. I was once on this type of hill when the war first broke out (starting one of the longest-running RFC’s in Wikipedia history)…I conceded afterwards. As a long-time editor to another long-time editor, don’t die on this hill when it involves anything “Rushed”. Wait a few days and then look at it again. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Jerusalem Post has a report [14] that the Israeli foreign minister has confirmed Sinwar's death. Thus I believe it is premature to delete this article at this time, and clearly it is a notable event of great significance if he is indeed dead, which appears to be the case. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TOOSOON to delete. He is confirmed dead through DNA analysis. This AfD is premature, getting ahead of events. There might be a case for merge, but give the article time to develop, -- GreenC17:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it's now treated as confirmed as least by a bunch of live blogs (BBC, CNN, WaPo, etc). I would have ideally waited for a couple more authoritative sources, but if we delete now based on that, it's likely that this will be recreated within a matter of minutes or hours. Similarly it could go in Yahya Sinwar for now, but it seems very likely that we'll end up with a dedicated article as more reliable sources cover this in more depth (in the coming hours), so it doesn't seem productive to merge and refork later. — xDanielxT/C\R17:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - What we know for sure is that there are many articles reporting this. Our coverage should appropriately note that (and does, through use of attribution). While I would agree the article was premature (tbh, as is this AfD), if it wasn't created by the current creator somebody else would have anyways, as is the way of Wikipedia. It would be nice for us to slow down, but that's okay - if all the other articles reporting this death are also wrong, then we can be wrong too, at which point we can delete the article. As long as we are careful not to declare Sinwar as dead without suitable attribution, it seems reasonable of us to report on the assumptions our WP:RS are also reporting on. ASUKITE17:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly created too fast but this is where we are: He's dead. The manner of his death is a major story and an important event in the current conflict. Notability is ridiculously high. Suggest this be closed as snow keep.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like others said, it was made too quickly, but it is confirmed he is dead. Given his importance to ongoing world politics, a page for his death is appropriate. SteelersDiclonious (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is written like a resume. Both sources used lack independence. One is written by her paid talent management, and the other is an interview from the website of her employer. Not clear the subject meets GNG as the article has zero independent sources with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. The ProQuest test is quite promising with 224 hits. Added a few reviews (e.g. FT.com) to a new Reception section. Could easily add more. Started revising so it sounds less CV-like. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to keep. I would withdraw but someone else already voted delete so I can't. I just found an entry in a German language reference work see here, and this along with the other sources added clearly meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Maile66 to reconsider previous !vote. There is no dispute the original stub was bad and did not look promising at all, but it turns out that she actually is an internationally acclaimed opera singer who sings a lot of lead roles in a somewhat unconventional career path across Europe with occasional appearances in Japan and the US...and has enough coverage and reviews that doing justice to this bio will take some time. But anyway check out the article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sourceless list for music not even originating in its country of origin, and definitely likely book-cooked and influenced by outside sources. Nate•(chatter)22:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. I made an effort to find references and could only find primary sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am against deleting this article. I have just updated the "External links" section. This is a Taiwan company doing business worldwide, so as the descriptions are detailed in its Chinese page, its Enlish page is brief. It must, however, is needed in English for people in other countries. In Wikipedia, don't be a "deletioniist", but be an "encourager" to let other people to participate in update, in order to make a "weak" article a better article. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I can find in a BEFORE is ordinary business activities. The article is completely unsourced and there is no sign of notability that I can find. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The book covers the company on six pages. The book notes: "在集團轉投資方面,東元近年來更展現了旺盛的企圖心,除了電 子、電機、通訊之外,東元投資領域已經橫跨半導體、光電以及其他相 關的關鍵零組件、通訊固網、網路軟件、流通餐飲等行業。在多年經營 下,東元電機已由原來的重電、家電領域邁向全球化的高科技企業,從 製造、行銷等多面向發展,建立起縱橫世界的國際品牌——TECO。"
From Google Translate: "In terms of group reinvestment, TECO has shown strong ambition in recent years. In addition to electronics, motors, and communications, TECO’s investment areas have spanned semiconductors, optoelectronics, and other related key components, communications fixed lines, and networks. Road software, distribution catering and other industries. After years of operation, TECO has moved from its original heavy electrical and home appliance fields to a global high-tech enterprise, developing from manufacturing, marketing and other aspects, and established TECO, an international brand that spans the world."
The article notes: "Taiwanese electronics conglomerate TECO Electric and Machinery Co. (TECO) is in the middle of a proxy battle ahead of its upcoming annual general meeting on May 24. Eugene Huang (黃育仁), the grandson of TECO founder Lin Ho-yin (林和引), has released his vision for the company’s future with the launch of the FutureTECO campaign. Huang, whose father Theodore Huang was chair for many years but resigned from his board seat in 2021, has asked shareholders to support his eight nominees for TECO’s board at the upcoming general meeting. ... Founded in 1956 as an industrial motor manufacturer, TECO has evolved into a major business group, spanning heavy electric equipment, home appliances, information technology, communications, electronic components and parts, infrastructural engineering, financial investment, dining, and services."
Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2021-07-23). Wu, Ting-yun 吳廷勻; Wang, Li-hua 王儷華 (eds.). "東元之爭》父子惡鬥、家事變公事 15萬股民權益在哪裡?" [TECO Battle》Father and son fight fiercely, family affairs turn into business affairs. Where are the rights of 150,000 shareholders?]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-12. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
The article notes: "東元集團黃茂雄、黃育仁父子經營權之爭,因為疫情進入2個月的延長賽,終於畫下暫時的逗點。"
From Google Translate: "The dispute between the father and son of TECO Group Huang Maoxiong and Huang Yuren for management rights has finally come to a temporary end after entering a two-month extension due to the epidemic."
The article notes: "這是一門代價不小的家族傳承及公司治理課。東元股東會投票結果,只是另一個開始。兩方公開收購戰還在進行,未來,東元電機必須更努力證明,自己仍是連續7年公司治理評鑑前5%的模範生。"
From Google Translate: "This is a costly lesson in family inheritance and corporate governance. The voting result of TECO's shareholders' meeting is just another beginning. The public takeover battle between the two parties is still ongoing. In the future, TECO Electric must work harder to prove that it is still a model student in the top 5% of corporate governance evaluations for seven consecutive years."
The article notes: "去年是東元業績最好的一年,去年毛利率創下七年新高,營收和EPS也刷新史上紀錄,財務健全、負債比率低,無庸置疑是一家營運穩健的公司。但過去這幾年,也是東元經營權紛爭最多的時期,父子反目的戲碼比八點檔還好看,吸住全民的注意力。現在經營權之爭已休戰,東元由華新麗華焦家、寶佳兩大股東共治的局勢落定,利明献認為,中長期來看,過去紛擾必定對品牌以及軍心有所影響,東元現在急需一個能扭轉態勢的掌舵者。"
From Google Translate: "Last year was TECO's best performance year. Last year's gross profit margin hit a seven-year high, and revenue and EPS also set new historical records. With sound finances and a low debt ratio, there is no doubt that it is a company with stable operations. But the past few years have also been the period of most disputes over TECO's management rights. The drama about father and son's rebellion is even better than the 8 o'clock show, attracting the attention of the whole people. Now that the dispute over management rights has come to an end, TECO is now governed by the two major shareholders, Walsin Lihua Jiao Family and Baojia. Lee Ming-hsien believes that in the medium to long term, the past turmoil will definitely have an impact on the brand and military morale. TECO There is an urgent need for a leader who can turn the situation around."
Zhang, Rui-yi 張瑞益 (2023-05-03). "東元永續績效 國際肯定 榮獲MSCI AA評級 列全球同業前15% 生產據點全都通過ISO 14000環保認證" [TECO's sustainable performance is recognised internationally Won the MSCI AA rating and ranked among the top 15% of global peers. All production sites have passed ISO 14000 environmental certification.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
The article notes: "東元電機是國內推動ESG相當積極且有成的企業,根據國際知名評比MSCI(Morgan Stanley Capital International)ESG Rating最新發布的2023年4月評比報告,東元再進一級,由A級升等為AA級,永續發展績效評比成績為全球同業中的前15%。MSCI在報告中指出,東元董事會運作良善,董事獨立性符合投資人期待;而東元全球的生產據點皆通過ISO 14000環保認證,為業界翹楚。"
From Google Translate: "TECO Electric is a very active and successful company in promoting ESG in China. According to the latest April 2023 rating report released by the internationally renowned MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) ESG Rating, TECO has moved up a level and been upgraded from Grade A. It is rated AA and ranks in the top 15% of its global peers in terms of sustainable development performance. MSCI pointed out in the report that TECO's board of directors operates well and the director's independence meets investors' expectations; TECO's global production sites have all passed ISO 14000 environmental certification and are among the best in the industry."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TECO Electric and Machinery (traditional Chinese: 東元電機; simplified Chinese: 东元电机) to pass [Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria]], which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Comment - User:Bastun has nominated nine Remedy Drive albums for deletion, all with the same non-descriptive rationale copy/pasted into each: "Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV." (The first nomination has slightly different syntax.) There is no evidence that a WP:BEFORE search, specific to each album, was done before this mass copy/paste operation. Some of the album articles have citations to reliable sources in the Christian music media, though others could be redirected to the band's article. That's already more variable evidence then given in these mass nominations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - not sure what you mean by "non-descriptive"? It's accurate. The albums have all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a bit more on this one too. As I said on the nomination for Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss11208:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No significant coverage in secondary, independent sources outside of all the crypto churnalism. Accomplished businesswoman and executive, but there's nothing much of note (awards, research, influence, founding of a company). Mooonswimmer16:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanessa Grellet has appeared in 3 notable French media: La Tribune, BFM Business, and Le Monde Informatique, as well as in the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. She has also contributed to a paper for the World Economic Forum. I thought that these were notable primary and secondary independent sources. Your help would be appreciated in order to improve the article. Crystalcoin (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes source you linked to has only one mention of Vanessa Grellet. Translated to English:
Between pure speculation and truly disruptive technology, NFTs appeal to a wide range of profiles. The “NFT Panel: How NFT funds are taking advantage of an emerging market” conference presented how NFT funds are approaching this market. Renowned panelists Julien Bouteloup, founder Blackpool Finance, James WO, CEO-founder DFG, Drew Austin, Redbeard Ventures and Vanessa Grellet, Coinfound explained their interest in these technologies.
Although it's a generally reliable source when the articles are written by Forbes staff, that is far from significant coverage, which is necessary to demonstrate the notability of a subject. It's a passing mention. It doesn't develop on why Grellet is a renowned panelist. Do you have any sources covering her or her work in-depth? That's what would help demonstrate that she is indeed notable. We'd need at least two or three sources. Mooonswimmer22:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your answer. Vanessa Grellet contributed to a World Economic Forum paper in 2021.
I don't think this organization would have invited her if she wasn't a renowned panelist.
Comment: Source 2 is a RS, but it's an interview with this person where they give advice on financial subjects. Rest of the sourcing is PR items for this or that financial venture. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough coverage to show notability. A French Gsearch limited to .fr sites [15] only brings up PR items. There isn't enough to show notability. She's mentioned here [16], but it's only a brief paragraph discussing other things. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
French wiki article has been tagged for promotion and tagged for notability concerns, but they let it run for a year before discussing deletion (which is, strange, but their house, their rules). Sources in the French article are largely these PR items or similar to those used in the En wiki article. I do find it odd that there are no Fr sources used on the Fr wiki article, about a person from France. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources that talk about her; she is important but you need sourcing. Neither of these is about her, they just confirm she appeared at xyz event. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer, I've found a few reliable sources like Forbes and the Financial Times and I have edited the article. Let me know if you see any other improvement. Crystalcoin (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Kindly provide references for the claims and titles held so that they can be assessed for notability and SIGCOV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An apparently WP:PROMO bio from a single-purpose account. The sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Most are interviews (or other primary sources like official bios and event agendas) or trivial mentions. CoinTelegraph is of questionable reliablity per WP:RSN and this article is WP:SIGCOV of Consensys, not Grellet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. The reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss11208:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. There isn't even a Jesus Freak Hideout revie for this one. Ss11207:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Similarly to Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss11212:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. A lot of these articles seem to exist under the premise that Christian outlet Jesus Freak Hideout reviewing the release makes it notable—it doesn't. Ss11207:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. A lot of these articles seem to exist under the premise that Christian outlet Jesus Freak Hideout reviewing the release makes it notable—it doesn't. Ss11207:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything about a dance. This mentions a basket [17]. Tagged for over a decade and no one's worked on it, delete it and be done with it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has been fairly uncooperative so far, despite several people having tried to explain why this is not a viable Wikipedia article as it stands. Geschichte (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge back to the character list. There's sourcing there to support a few sentences about each of the major species but this can be condensed to a short section with the character list article. Most of the content is far more appropriate at a fan wiki. Masem (t) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In itscurrent state, the article still heavily relies on in universe info that is unsourced or sourced to the primary work. I am certain that we can better summarize the major sle ies from the show with se ondary sources without excessive in universe detail, hence the trim and merge to keep appropriate content. If there is an article recreation problem, salting can be done on the redirect. Masem (t) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Sgeureka: So what is the central argument for deletion here? Is it notability? If so, was a WP:BEFORE search done? What were the results?
Or is the main argument a WP:PAGEDECIDE one for a likely notable topic?
The original merge is quite justified in my view, as there were no objections to the proposal then. But I do understand that the lack of treatment of the Shadows is one concern, because I know there are secondary sources talking about them, even though they are neither worked into this article nor the old stand-alone one. I don't have an opinion yet on the merge, but I am against deletion, as I don't see a reason not to at least have the redirect as WP:AtD. I think the old merge discussion should have been continued instead of starting a deletion discussion. Pinging @Anonymous44: as involved editor.
@Daranios: I am not arguing for deletion, but I want to ideally make the redirect (a common AFD result per WP:COMMON#Fiction) "stick" officially without tedious back-and-forth discussions with fans. Or get my wrist slapped here in the process. If proper merge discussions can be undone willy-nilly without addressing the original article issues (tagged for 12 years before the merger!), the lesson here will be to do AFD from the outset in the future instead of the softer merge proposal route, which I used to be a fan of. Notability is not the main reason why we are at AFD, but the article sure should be build around establishing it (it currently isn't). – sgeurekat•c21:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgeureka: Thanks for clarifying! I understand that starting an AfD has a higher chance of getting more opinions and a closure on the question of a stand-alone article as compared to a merge discussion on the talk page. But I also think that there are good reasons the deletion policy explicitely says not to use this process if one wants or suspects merging as an outcome. E.g. as you have put forward this being a WP:Contentfork as a reason for the nomination, deletion policy says "Reasons for deletion include ... 5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)" (emphasis mine). Maybe to reduce frustration on the process in general I would like to point out that this is a bit of special case: Yes, you had started a merge discussion. Noone objected, so you were completely justified in going forward with the merge. But there were also no further opinions given, so one cannot speak of a consensus formed, which was "undone willy-nilly". Rather, we now have a second, opposing opinion, so at this point there is clearly a no consensus situation, and the provisional restoration of the list in my view is justified as well, based on the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (even though there was a time gap before refert here). I think "tedious back-and-forth discussions with fans", or rather, other Wikipedia editors, are the normal and reasonable, if inconvenient process at this point to reach an informed decision on the best course of action. It would be quite a different case if a solid consensus would have formed. Then there need to be good reasons and significant input to overthrow previous decisions, and there should be no "willy-nilly" "back-and-forth" about it. But this discussion needs to take place first. Now if the merge discussion would remain with only two opinions, which may happen at a talk page discussion even if is somewhat frustrating, I think there were to options: 50/50 opinion looks like no consensus, then things are left as they are for the time being. Or if you think you have the way better arguments, get a neutral third party to decide at Wikipedia:Closure requests, just as we have a neutral party closing a deletion discussion. We don't need the AfD process to achieve that. Daranios (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the thing... I have plenty of dead-tree resources on Babylon 5, but no time to do anything much except for stave off AfDs:
Bassom, D., & Straczynski, J. M. (1997a). Creating Babylon 5: Behind the scenes of Warner Bros. revolutionary deep space TV drama (1st American ed). Ballantine Books.
Bassom, D., & Straczynski, J. M. (1997b). The A-Z of Babylon 5: [The complete reference guide to the groundbreaking sci-fi series] created by J. Michael Straczynski. Dell Publishing.
Guffey, E. F., & Koontz, K. D. (2017). A dream given form: The unofficial guide to the universe of Babylon 5. ECW Press.
Johnson-Smith, J. (2005). American science fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and beyond. Wesleyan University Press.
Lancaster, K. (2001). Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan performance in a media universe (1st ed). University of Texas Press.
Lane, A. (1997). The Babylon file: The definitive unauthorized guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV series, Babylon 5. Virgin.
Lane, A. (1999). The Babylon file: The definitive unauthorised guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV series Babylon 5. Vol. 2. Virgin.
There is absolutely enough in these books to support notability for an article on each episode of the series, as well as most things like the shadows as a civilization. How we deal with this is really dependent on how we, collectively, view WP:TIND, as I'd be lying if I said I thought I'd have time to work on this in the foreseeable future. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, echoing 21.Andromedae. With the secondary sources presented, the topic looks notable, and there would be enough material to solve the problems it has through normal editing, so deletion is not the way to go. I have no strong opinion if this is better kept as a stand-alone article or condensed as part of List of Babylon 5 characters for the time being. On the one hand it has been tagged for the problems for a long time, on the other I do think it would be better presented as a separate article in the long run. If it were to be covered in the characters list, some more should be added there. I can take a look at the Shadows in case this is kept. So like Jclemens, it depends on where we stand with regard to WP:TIND. I come out just on the keep side as an AfD outcome, not precluding further discussion on a merge on the talk page. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not satisfied. This appears to be a textbook indiscriminate list unless you can demonstrate sources discuss the civilizations of that universe as a whole, and separate from other discussion on the universe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm:sources discuss the civilizations of that universe as a whole I believe the listed secondary sources do just that. separate from other discussion on the universe I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean that there needs to be material directly commenting on civilizations/species of Babylon 5, then I agree and again believe that the provided sources do that. If you mean that there need to be sources which only discuss the civilizations without (separate from?) referring to the fictional universe, that makes little sense to me. They are part of the universe. Both topics are connected. If there should be one article on the civilizations and the universe or two depends on the amount of material in secondary sources. I believe there is enough for two. If they are better presented together, at least until things get too large to read, or separate I have no strong opinion on. It is an editorial question, which is no reason for deletion. Fact is, we have a civilizations article but not a universe one. So if someone thinks things are better presented another way, they can do so, but first deleting everything is not the way to go according to policy. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as establishing notability goes, I'm not really sure that most of those sources listed above should qualify, as they appear to have been written specifically to talk about Babylon 5, versus discussing the series and elements of it within a broader context; two of them were even written in part by the creator of the series. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge: I think it's possible that there may be something of value here, though I question whether truly independent sources (see my reply to Daranios above) have discussed the civilizations of B5 in any substantive detail. However, the listing in its current state would be more appropriate for a wikia or such, and I'm not sure how much of the current material would survive any real effort to provide sources that demonstrated real-world significance. I've also been on Wikipedia long enough to suspect that if the list is kept then we'll simply be revisiting this discussion in another few years when it hasn't been significantly improved. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:ORG. Has been marked as problematic since 2020. Just summarizes the routine business activities of the company and its main offering. The awards do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves. I can't find sources with significant coverage of this company, like its particular influence on citizen engagement. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources are primary sources- users of your company's offering. The third seems to be a directory listing with a description. The people powered Chile story might be okay, but that's only one. The rating is not as it's not significant coverage. The company's own reports are primary sources as well. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it's still not significant coverage that contributes to notability. Personally I never heard of IRCAI(not that's it's required I have heard of it) 331dot (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The World Summit Awards have an article, so that works towards contributing towards notability(but the other awards listed should just be removed as they don't have articles). The award the founder received is for the founder, not the company itself. That's still two- we usually look for three with in-depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO. The awards are non-notable, The sources given in the comment above are either primary, mentions only or PR items. I've tried .be websites, still only getting PR and their own web sites. Non-notable entity. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another advertisement for a SaaS-based startup. The sources (at least, the ones I can actually get to load or past the paywall) do not indicate this passes WP:GNG. ASUKITE18:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response The subject of this article meets the **General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG)** and **Notability for Companies (WP:NCORP)** based on multiple independent, reliable sources. The following references provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions:
These sources demonstrate significant independent coverage, meeting the requirements of **WP:GNG** by showing that the subject has received attention from reputable publications. Additionally, since the article is about a business, it aligns with **WP:NCORP** by having multiple third-party sources, not limited to press releases or company announcements.
keep The content appears to be detailed and written in a neutral tone, aligning with Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and verifiability. The article provides substantial information relevant to the topic, and there is no indication of promotional bias. Additionally, the references cited seem appropriate and support the article’s claims. Therefore, I believe the article should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7 (talk·contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Polygnotus (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The article should be retained as it has received link in from prominent celebrities such as K S Chithra,Sharreth and K K Nishad.Relation to such well-known public figures demonstrate the subject’s notability and relevance. These acknowledgments also contribute to the subject's significance and public interest, aligning with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. --Divyajain85 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) — Divyajain85 (talk·contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. The closer should note that the keep voters in the discussion so far (Sanyam, 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7, and Divyajain85) all appear to be SPAs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep It appears that editors Hemiauchenia and Polygnotus are primarily focused on my (Sanyam's) involvement rather than the content and significance of the page in question. I strongly disagree with their assessment regarding the article's failure to meet the criteria outlined in "WP:NCORP." The page clearly includes all important parameters such as reliable media sources and relevant linkages with notable individuals. Additionally, it is essential to recognize that multiple identities have been created online under the same name, highlighting the necessity for Wikipedia as a critical validation tool to differentiate between fake and legitimate representations.--Sanyam Jain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Analysis of sources proves that the page is for WP:PROMO. Poor sources on the page that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter and it does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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}}.
There doesn't seem to be much coverage of this company outside of trade journals. The NYT article mentions the company a few times but does not address it directly in much if any detail. CNN is one single namedrop. I can't see any way of meeting all four criteria of WP:ORGCRIT with multiple sources, unfortunately. Previously deleted by PROD in 2006. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I am not opposed to redirection as an ATD (and would have WP:BLARed had there not been a previous PROD) but I don't believe there is anything that is appropriate to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As the subject of this page, I respectfully request its removal. Given that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit content without my approval, I have concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Therefore, I prefer that my personal information not be displayed or managed in this way, and I hope this request can be granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumuja (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Academia Europea implies notability. The Gscholar profile for this individual shows over 24,000 citations, which I think is also notable. Easy pass at PROF or academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming per WP:AGF that this is a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, that is only valid for a borderline case. This is not a borderline case. This stub consists of only four claims, none of which is personal information and all of which are easily verified, all four of which would individually be enough for notability: named or distinguished professorships at two different major universities, and fellow of two major academic societies for which this level of membership is a significant honor. Double pass of WP:PROF #C3 and #C5, as well as the pass of #C1 suggested by his Google Scholar profile. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1: I concur with David Eppstein. The premise of WP:BIODELETE requires a lack of consensus to keep the article, meaning it must fail notability guidelines before deletion is considered. This nomination statement did not address how that would be the case at all, while the comments from Oaktree b and David Eppstein have already demonstrated otherwise. It is even more puzzling that the teaching positions, memberships, and research progress are all publicly accessible, regardless of whether this Wikipedia article exists, these details would still be available online. I do not think this is a reasonable deletion request. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul)19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Out of an abundance of caution I have suppressed the revisions containing that sentence, which consisted of generic fear-mongering about Chinese scholars in Australia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the user rights to view the content of the deleted version. Based on David's summary, it seems to be related to defamation of the subject rather than the disclosure of their public personal details. (Correct me if I misunderstood.) In this case, the subject should file their case at WP:RFO to request the suppression of the defamation claims, rather than having the entire article deleted. (and since David has already taken this step, perhaps we can consider the nominator's concerns alleviated and the deletion rationale resolved.) —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul)13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Agree with above points: if notability is somewhat marginal, then we should honor the wishes of the subject, but I don't see anything marginal here. Being Fellow of the IEEE is particularly a bright line pass of NPROF. "Weak" only because I do give some weight to the wishes of the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Unsure if this is about the same person [19], but there is a lack of sourcing. Sources now in the article are Yellow (iffy per Cite Highlighter) and red (non-RS). I don't see enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About the only thing they appear to have been even borderline notable for is the North Korea video, and even there the sources are not brilliant (and WP:BLP1E applies anyway) . But in the end if the only available sources about his death are other social media posts, that suggests non-notability. Black Kite (talk)19:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
So there is no in-depth sustained significant independent coverage of the topic of the article and it does not meet GNG. Since you have access to the source, can you please look up if the claim I am talking about below is indeed SYNTH or if it is made in the book and post the quote here? Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Royal visits are always well-documented. Every local history will document the royals who arrive, and every action of a specific royal will get documented in court circulars etc., but for a stand-alone list we need specific sources that show Worthing as having a special status as a royal destination, different to, say, Manchester, which has probably also been visited by many royals at many times. The fact that the royals are notable, and that Worthing is notable, doesn't mean that the conjunction of the two is notable. Elemimele (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since from what I can tell from the article, the visit of Princess Amelia had a significant impact on Worthing's development. I think the list should be deleted or heavily cut, though. Bluepotato81 (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way its phrased in the article feels very WP:SYNTHy, not sure the source supports that and I am not sure the source is even reliable. The idea that one child spends a couple of months on the coast and that because of that local authorities spent the next ten years developing Worthing as a high-class seaside resort and spa town, with amenities designed to attract fashionable visitors is suspicious. Much more likely that the child was sent to a place that was already a resort/spa and that was later developed into something bigger and better, something that was already happening and would've happened anyway. Polygnotus (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is sourced to blogs and the UN's website. As far as I'm aware working for the UN does not form part of any alternative notability criteria and the primary sources cited here don't cover this subject in any significant depth and don't support WP:ANYBIO𝔓420°𝔓Holla10:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reliability of sources is questionable, and otherwise unsuitable to be considered SIGCOV. Especially concerning given that this is sufficiently BLP-adjacent that the policy likely binds us. Even worse, the article text actually only bears the barest resemblance to the contents of the nearest footnotes, if even that, and the tone is such that even had we the sources to write a proper article, we may be best to start from scratch. The bluelinked hosts preclude A7, but perhaps G11 should be seriously considered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not the original editor for this article, I'm the one who added it to the list of cat breeds article. Karelian Bobtails are rare breed and mostly in rural villages. There are a handful of breeders in the Republic and Leningrad Oblast. Breeding is difficult because of the recessive gene. All original information online is in Russian, and a bit in Suvi. If you give me a couple weeks I can perhaps contact some people to see if they have the original research and documents from the 90s. I can't do this immediately though as I have field work for the next couple weeks.
I don't dispute the breed exists, just that there is not enough independent secondary coverage for a stand alone article. I do not mind waiting for you to look for sources but if they're original research and primary documents that aren't published they are not useful for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AFD’ing this because redirecting season articles to the club is not a thing we do, i.e. the redirect is not useful. The page was rightfully prodded by ViridianPenguin and Spiderone, as the page failed WP:NOTSTATS; a season page that barely had some information entered, no lead etc, so no reason to preserve the page history either. The creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: There is multiple other accidents involving no continued coverage, but I don't care if it gets deleted. I just think that why would the draft be accepted just to get deleted. I tried to put in effort, but whatever I guess. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Understandable. I do not mean anything by this, but if you are going to make an article attempt to pick more notable and well sourced topics. The reason it is being deleted is not out of spite or hate, it is because it's a non notable crash that underwent no sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Yet again, if this is deleted, i am sorry. @Bloxzge 025Lolzer3k17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Delete I have been eyeing this article for a while. Standard low fatality run of the mill crash with no sustained coverage nor notable or lasting effects. @Rosbif73Lolzer3k14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cuernavaca Airport – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: No sustainedcontinued coverage post-2023 with WP:EVENTCRIT#4 stating that routine kinds of news events accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. It might be a bit too early to judge whether this accident has lasting effects or not, with the final report not having been released yet, but if in the end something changes, such as the event having lasting effects, I think a recreation of the article would be a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airport. This could easily be condensed into a paragraph there. The operating company doesn't have an article, and the model of plane is just a small section- merging anything there would be inappropriate for both weight and relevance reasons. I've had a look round for more recent Spanish-language sources, but I'm not seeing any. There's nothing about this accident which suggests it will have long-term notability compared to the many other small airplane accidents and incidents in the world.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Significant violations of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and I have reason to believe it also violates WP:UNDUE due to the article's documenting of all versions of Thunderbird, including every single beta version. Without the table, there is not enough content to justify the article's existence, at least currently. It also has longstanding issues, including a lack of reliable, high-quality, secondary sources as almost every single source is just a link to Mozilla's own release notes, which is in incredibly heavy primary source territory. I feel like so much focus has been put on filling out the table that it has been to the detriment of the article as a whole. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 07:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep it is often hard to find in depth coverage of national professional associations because they operate in a quality controlled walled garden. They don’t generate much chatter in the mainstream press and they own the specialist outlets. They’re much larger than the UK’s Royal Society for Public Health and probably more active. Mccapra (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROD removed with statement "Google/English language websearch is not good for Malayalam culture". If that is the case, why is it that Google Malayalam also yields nothing [20]. Changing the year parameter to today yields an unrelated music video of a similar name. Please find a review or two before keeping this. DareshMohan (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Fails significant coverage WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If anyone can find secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage and two or more reviews from known critics, let me know and I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is impossible to just do a general search to find sources due to the way sources are archived. Best to check the Sify[21], Indiainfo[22], and Keralatalkies[23] reviews. A quick ctrl-f finds nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG. 3 sources are distance calculators or google maps. The 5th source is its own website. Lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep and merge 2008 The investment, then de-investment because of Stanford's fraud makes this a very proper article in the recent modern history of cricket. Nate•(chatter)20:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2008 season article into the main article. The series and all it's subsequent controversy around Stanford warrants an article. But a separate season article isn't needed, as there was only one season. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
List may also lean towards WP:FANCRUFT as the episodes overview section, with very-detailed info on the highest winning bracket of each contestant more fit on Philippine showbiz fandom websites than English Wikipedia. In short, unlikely encyclopedic in nature.
At the very least, it can be merged with Rainbow Rumble#Episodes but focusing on salient details: episode date, team name, contestants (in an inline enumerated list, not a bulleted, vertical list that unnecessarily consumes article page height), and the episode winner. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not every episode is significant or notable enough to be detailed on this scale; the list simply acts like an episode database for the show. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There was coverage a year after, and then some mentions here and there in years to come. Probably not very sustained. I'm interested in repurposing the article to an article about the location, Lavangsdalen. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lavangsdalen. This is a valley known for one thing first and foremost: road accidents. I have created the article, chronicling the modern accidents and outlining the hundreds of millions that have subsequently been spent on hightened safety. The bus accident where 5 died was the largest one, but still part of a broader pattern of accidents. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merger. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [24][25]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source. So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that. Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [30], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: The forum review the nom mentions is about all I can find as well. I think if we had more reviews, this might be a weak keep, but there aren't any. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Massive conflict of interest issues with a good amount of the edits coming from the subject of the article himself. Some of the sources appear to be dead. Any other sources don't even mention him, focusing more on the actual companies he claimed to have some involvement in. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is bad; mostly unsourced and with promotional language. I can't access reference 7 (WSJ 1999/03/12) which might be non-trivial coverage of him, or might just be a mention of him while discussing his (and other) companies. The Wired reference ("Greetings from the Info Mesa") is only a trivial mention of him. According to a Google search, he was most recently affiliated with the Center for Complex Systems and Enterprises at Stevens Institute of Technology; he might have retired because I don't see a current faculty bio. If no additional sources are presented, this should be deleted. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TNT. The list of issues are legion: created by an admitted paid marketer, edited by the subject, a BLP with whole sections unsourced, not inherited problems. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd back in 2007 so not eligible for Soft Deletion. I'll just add that I don't see obvious signs that the subject edited this article and would be interested in knowing how the nominator came to this conclusion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. No significant coverage. References only give a paragraph or so mentioning something similar, but only one uses the translation of tasjil. Cuñado ☼ - Talk01:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose as the creator. In contrast to the nominator's claim, there are three sources in the article that specifically use the word "Tasjil" (Amanat 2009, Naficy 2011 and Pirnazar 2019) and all of them are scholarly. The book Historical Dictionary of the Bahá'í Faith has an entry for the process under the title 'DECLARATION OF BELIEF OR ACCEPTANCE' (translating the word "Tasjil" to Acceptance) and another reliable source (Neusner 2003) dedicates almost two full pages to a detailed description of its stages (titled 'Who is considered a Baháʼí?'), while a certain case in Africa, Samuel Kima of Cameroon, is mentioned in several pages of an academic book published by the renowned Brill Publishers (Lee 2011). These are only a handful of sources and I believe this is a proof that this topic is notable. Khánum Gül (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:GNG and WP:DICTIONARY. One problem is that you created the title in Arabic for a process that is not known in English by its Arabic name. The content is probably most suited for Baháʼí teaching plans#Baháʼí terminology with a section on "Declaration" or similar. Both of the other sections (Pioneering and Entry by troops) previously has their own articles and were consolidated into that page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first objection concerns naming, which is not the focus of this discussion. I have no issue with a title like "Baháʼí Enrollment Process" (or something similar) and a mention of its name in the original scripture of the faith, "Tasjil," in the article's lead. However, I still disagree with your assertion that this topic is not notable, as it has been significantly covered by multiple academic sources in great detail. I have added another source (van den Hoonaard 1996), which provides an extensive discussion of the practice in Canada, examining various cases. Khánum Gül (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. SInce we have a difference of opinion here on the outcome of this AFD, a source review would be helpful to a closer. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.