Keep he is a notable diplomat and meets WP:GNG and or WP:BASIC. He has served as NATO spokesperson and there are some coverage about him, though some are press releases or news conference transcript, they are reliable because they are issued by either national governments or international organisations. I found these sources [1][2][3][4][5]. I think more reliable sources are out there waiting to be picked up and if a deep search is conducted they would be found. Piscili (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, this and this are not WP:SIGCOV of Brodeur, it is him making comments in the media and not about his life and career that would be significant coverage. This is a primary source from his employer NATO. I could not open the mid.ru source. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability, as it does not cite significant independent sources that demonstrate the biscuit's enduring cultural or historical significance --Loewstisch (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a long defunct biscuit brand. Historically significiant, and unsurprisingly hard to find in-depth coverage. This is still useful uncontroversial content, and is of no commerical benefit to any company. Perhaps a case of WP:IAR. Edwardx (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NBISCUIT does not appear to exist - however I agree with the above this is no longer a commercial product, and there is sufficient cited sources now in the article to demonstrate a level of cultural impact and give sufficient sourcing to sustain an article, including recipes from secondary sources. ResonantDistortion09:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has already survived two attempted AfDs easily, and neither of those had a single vote to delete. The nominator this time was also the nominator of the second AfD, and this latest nomination has no acknowledgement of any of the successful arguments made by "Keep" voters previously. The second AfD did have some discussion of how the article is tough to maintain due to the singer's enormously prolific career, and perhaps splitting into multiple articles (perhaps by decade) could be considered. Otherwise this nomination is merely an attempt to pretend that the idea didn't already fail twice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion given the large participation on the 2nd nomination and the lack of participation here. Also, given two previous AFDs, this discusion is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article clearly passes NLIST. This is neither WP:FANCRUFT, nor some indiscriminate collection of information, as the information in list is factual list of songs that were recorded. Asha Bhosale has been included in the Guinness book of world records for that source. As someone mentioned in the previous AFD not having this list will be stupid. If you folks personally can't handle it, then post about it on relevant wikiprojects, and stop working on the article. When the article "list of missing persons" got big, it was not deleted, it was split in decades — something which had been suggested to you already. Kindly stop nominating same notable article again-and-again. —usernamekiran (talk)07:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but improve). I already commented above but will formally vote here, because no viable argument has ever been made to delete this article. Two previous AfDs passed with flying colors with all votes to keep in compliance with policy, which the current nominator ignored. The one delete vote here, on how to "handle" the article, is invalid per several sub-policies at WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Granted, the article is indeed unwieldy, and like the above voter I recommend splitting it up into several new articles by decade. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the nominator's response to those editors arguing to Keep this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nom states that it does not meet NALBUM but a quick look at the article shows it went platinum so meets #3. Nomination is based on a false claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references largely consist of primary/non-independent sources and stats databases, but more importantly, they also all fail verification or only cover off-topic matters; none actually discuss this record or list. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A thorough WP:BEFORE search yielded dismal results; the best-quality source I could find was this Guinness World record page, but the WP:RSP entry for Guinness World Records says There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Furthermore, it briefly mentions the first-place entry but fails to discuss a group or set of list entries together as required by WP:NLIST. Page 329 of this book offers a sentence discussing the top four entries of this list but since it's published by AuthorHouse, it's an WP:SPS. With all that said, delete. Left guide (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. What EXISTING article do you suggest this article be Merged to? If one doesn't exist, this article will likely be Deleted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly clearly meets the sense of an important label as given in the WP:MUSIC guideline, and the article has citations indicating the label gets regular coverage in music press. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am seeing plenty of coverage from independent reliable sources in Chilean and, more broadly, South American media, which is not addressed by the nominator. Aside from coverage, he has earned hundreds of millions of streams, collaborated with notable international artists, and won awards for his achievements. JTtheOG (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added an update to the article from Billboard that notes his presence on the Billboard Global 200 list. This musician has been on the Billboard charts for Chile for a while now. Also made an appearance on Monitor Latino here but I can't figure out how to navigate their charts without an account. Reconrabbit19:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Disagreement here whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. Which sources provide SIGCOV? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the references do meet WP:MUSICBIO at this point, but not by much. The Premios Musa [es] award isn't enough to indicate notability. Many of the sources aren't very in depth—Billboard is basically one sentence, there are some awards listings that doesn't actually cover him at all, Publimetro y The Clinic [es] are about a fight and an arrest. I do think there's enough to meet the notability guideline though, with the profiles in La Tercera, El Mercurio, and Radioactiva [es] being the better sources. hinnk (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At worst, a merge to Rottweiler, which ought to be kept too, so ultimately this is a moot conversation, but it looks like this sublabel has enough of a roster and press coverage to pass muster on its own. I'm agnostic as to whether these label articles continue on as one or two separate articles, so long as the content is preserved. Chubbles (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.
Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is covered in DIN 1451 in more detail than is here. Nothing in that article gives me the impression that a separate article on DIN 1451 Engschrift would be needed. I did search and Engschrift is always defined together with DIN 1451. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DIN 1451, by condensing the Austria section into a single sentence and placing it under DIN_1451#Usage_examples (this is sourced - the article's only source refers to this). There is certainly no justification for a standalone article, as the target article provides better coverage for every other aspect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a disambiguation would be the way to go, given the several different types where the term is accepted as a variant, and the fact that it also represents the original German term for shorthand [6]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We now have several closure suggestions including Delete, Merge and Redirect with different target articles mentioned. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking WP:SIGCOV, I find zero News sources. I did a couple of searches and found no additional reliable sources. She might be talented, but she’s not getting any attention. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see how this is a candidate for a Speedy Keep when two participants are arguing for Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used are from organization websites that have a direct connection to the subject. No independent sources are used. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of experience, I find it useful to tag problems relevant to an AFD to help guide talking points in an AFD discussion. It may aid article improvements during an AFD if a rescue is attempted, or it helps others identify sourcing problems that may confirm a lack of notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wiesmoor#History – Coverage of the event does exist, such as [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] (and mentioned in a book [19]) but most of them are either from 1989 or are passing mentions, with additionally, the final report also available [20]. This german forum from 2005-2006 has uncovered some very good coverage of the event [21], however I've been unable to find the said sources online. With that being said, there isn't much sustainedcoverage post-1989 nor in-depth coverage of the event that would make it warrant a stand-alone article, whilst a merge could probably provide a slightly more historical context of the event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one source, from Hıncal Uluc's column. Many more search hits exist, but one needs to sift through them to identify SIGCOV. In addition, the SNG about musicians is likely to be satisfied here, due to concerts and records from notable firms.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoyfulTentmaker That's not a valid argument for a procedural close per WP:PCLOSE. If you think that there is WP:SIGCOV, then by all means provide evidence of it here. That is what an WP:AFD discussion is for. Better yet, take time to improve the article. You may vote a straight keep based on policy but is there is no procedural argument to be made here.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a non-notable individual, routine office work. Wiki is not a memorial and this person isn't more or less notable than the hundreds of others that passed away that day. There is no coverage about this person to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*::It wasn't an argument - I'm OK keeping this as is, per Sir MemeGod above. No opinion of whether or not to redirect it. The rest of my comment was just a general passing comment that Wikipedia sometimes varies in how things are applied, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused here. SirMemeGod wants to redirect the article and admits it fails BLP1E. There is no "Keep per Sir Memegod" because the argument is one that argues for redirecting. Could you clarify your position a bit? Acebulf(talk | contribs)00:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are enough sources out three to show notability. Im working on more sources. Besides, she is on one other language, which says to me that she is notable. Jeanette Coca Cola girl Martin (salut?) 06:38, 10 September, 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we get some confirmation that the sources in the Indonesian article meet en-wiki's notability standards? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Easily meets WP:BIO. Any Indonesian who grew up in the '90s will definitely know her. There are plenty of sources available online as well, although the article itself does need improvement. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VICE is major significant coverage, and I found additional SIGCOV here in this physical book, but Venture Beat seems more like an interview/primary source. I am not seeing GNG being passed here. If others discover more, I am willing to change my opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the coverage in Fortune appears to be an article solely on the topic. The Vice article is clearly above the WP:N bar. The Bleeding Cool one is probably above the bar for "significant". That's 2 or 3 sources, all of which are solely focused on the topic. The other sources have decent information, but appear to be press releases or otherwise primary. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little significant coverage comfortably independent of the subject. The Fortune, VentureBeat and Vice articles provide significant coverage, but are interspersed closely with interviews and many read like profiles of the business achievements of their creator. The Fortune article reveals itself to be part of a "daily newsletter on the world’s most powerful women", and as you read you get the sense that all its information comes from the developer as the source, which flatters her immensely: "Like any good marketer, Ethington knows her product intimately". Gita Jackson of Vice recounts herself attending a Fashion Week event held by Covet and: surprise! Both she and Covet seem very keen to name drop sponsor fashion brand Badgley Mischka front and centre, as Fuchs says: "“I think Covet provides an opportunity for people to experience Badgley Mischka that wouldn’t otherwise have that opportunity". The other articles, like Bleeding Cool and Disney News, are ephemera around game updates. Needs something a little more evaluative and removed from the creators to suggest it's not held up by puff pieces. VRXCES (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that the coverage in those three sources is significant. Those sources are occasionally fawning but their coverage of the game is solidly over the bar AND found in mainstream media, something unusual for an app. We can add in things like [22] and lots of things like [23] (not in depth, but certainly showing the raw breadth of coverage). Hobit (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.
Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was going to redirect to the company, but there isn't enough coverage about them [24] and [25] are typical. I suppose the two Irish Times articles could be used for an article about the company, but one's mostly this person talking about things with a bit on the company... We aren't debating an article on the company; delete the entrepreneur's article due to a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ilizarov apparatus Even though the article could potentially be beefed up, the topic makes no sense to be outside of its parent topic, where the use is. WP:N states This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. And WP:MERGE states Reasons for merging ... Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.— rsjaffe🗣️21:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's one hit in Google, seems to be a wiki mirror. I don't see notability, virtually zero coverage outside of database listings. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during New Page Patrol. This is about a particular run taken by a tram. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's also got some cultural traction when a local sports team created an ad that didn't quite "ht" as planned [26], and basic explanations of the phenomena [27], [28]. The phrase having cultural traction is a good indication of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable under WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT due to no significant coverage. PROD was objected to because of GEOFEAT, but, quote from that guideline (emphasis mine):
"Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."
Keep That is NOT what WP:GEOFEAT links to. The relevant policy wording is "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." The building is Grade II listed, so it passes WP:GEOFEAT. Edwardx (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I didn't see that part. But personally I still think in this case the lack of coverage supersedes something which is being presumed notable - we'll see what others say, I guess. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a jumbled mess of a list article, there is no clear criteria for what is included, and most of what is included is simply trivial information (most headed goals, most wins for a footballer, various random unproven goalscoring records). Any world records of actual merit already have their own articles (goals, appearances). All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one source link in VNSNVRKY that worked resolved to an article about Playboy Carti. The album is clearly a hoax; the artist is starting to look like one also, based on the faked sources. I've taken administrative action to delete the album's article and reserve my right to act administratively on the others. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do resolve to somewhere; I can do enough verification to say this isn't an outright hoax. However, they appear to be to blogs and other sources that fall short of WP:RS. Further, as noted, the artist is not notable per the specific notability criteria for musicians. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing's charted, and he released a song 4 days ago? Literally zero coverage about this person, appears to be an attempt at PROMO. At least let the ink dry on the CD's before you give yourself a wiki article... Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : For a Norwegian/Cameroonian musical individual, there is a lack of coverage in both countries, only in Nigeria [35] which has the usual puffy language. I'd expect something from the home crowd if this person was notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved back to draftspace after previous discussion was closed as soft delete, hence why WP:CSD#G4 is not appropriate despite being moved back to articlespace by the article's creator with no substantive improvements. Zero coverage of this non-notable website; WP:GNG and/or WP:WEB not met. --Kinut/c18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The sole reference is what the individual said in January 2024 when he said he was forming the party. Then this article was created Feb 10th They lost the election receiving 1,635 votes. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this to become a redirect to the subject's band, The Last Dinner Party; I choose not to do this unilaterally because NPP reviewer Ipigott re-reviewed it after I unreviewed it. None of the article's current citations show WP:BANDMEMBER being met; they consist of two insta posts, two interviews, the subject's webpage, and a performance listing. My WP:BEFORE search showed coverage in the context of the band and interviews, not enough to meet BANDMEMBER. Mach6116:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott Eh, If I've already started the AfD, I may as well see it to completion. I assume you mean't "feel free to unilaterally redirect the page", since the page was never moved. Mach6118:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE. Main claim to fame is that he was the youngest professional sports photographer. Articles was draftified yesterday from Md. Nahid Islam, sourced only with the dailycricket.com.bn sports blog post. Today it's been recreated with a second sports blog post from rabsportsnews.com, dated today, not a good sign of an independent source. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no coverage in reliable sources in English or Bengali (নাহিদ ইসলাম). Editors searching for any RS I missed please note that Nahid Islam is an unrelated activist. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The shooting itself, the saving of lives, and the subsequent awards and honors are the notability. I think it's worthy of keeping. Whether or not there needs to be editing might be a POV of how a person reads this. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The way to fix this article so that it doesn't read like a straight violation of WP:1E (notable for only one event) would be to add more detail about Shaw did afterwards. We find out that he gets a lot of awards - OK. But the article doesn't tell us anything about what Shaw did with his fame, except for "consider" running for mayor of Nashville. Tell us what he's been saying publicly – has he taken any position on crime, police, or gun control, for example? Are there any reliable secondary sources discussing his life outside of the one big event and what he's been up to? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Little has changed in his fortunes since the last AFD eight months ago. He's still a successful and civic-minded businessman from a prominent Pakistani business family, and has worked at a high level for some notable companies. But on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. I couldn't find SIGCOV of him in English or Urdu, just passing mentions in articles about the companies and organisations he's worked for, nothing to bring it up to the standard of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Comment: If only he had appeared in a few dramas, even in tiny roles, his BLP might have been easily saved from deletion under WP:NACTOR! But it’s ironic that someone so important in Pakistan's business community doesn’t have enough coverage that meets GNG. Anyway, I’ll hold off on voting for now. PS. No offense to the nominator Wikishovel, who also has legitimate reasons for taking it to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not a slam dunk; outside of the Engro connection, there are no RS that discuss him and we only have source 13 that is helpful. Rest are yellow per Source Highlighter, so of moderate reliability. I still don't see/find much else we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article follows the guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as it demonstrates significant coverage in both Pakistani and international media, meeting WP:RS. As per WP:BASIC, “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]” Please feel free to check the sources, they meet all the mentioned criteria. Crosji (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This statement clearly violates WP:AFDEQ by making personal remarks about the subject. Given this user's anonymity, it could potentially be part of a coordinated attack, possibly even Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry.
Delete. Non-notable at this time. The sources that are not not primary/self-published, Reuters, Financial Post, The News, can be considered trivial mentions at most, but not significant coverage about Dawood. These sources are a better proof of notability for the corporation, Engro, not for Dawood himself. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references for this article are strong, even for a stub. The subject is a notable businessman in Pakistan with occasional public appearances. His notability is supported by coverage from reputable national newspapers and some international outlets. The first deletion discussion, with only one vote for deletion, appeared premature. Hence the new article has been improved with additional sources. While contributions are welcome, the arguments for deletion are not in line with policy. -Crosji (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While there may not be extensive media coverage, the subject is undoubtedly an influential figure in Pakistan’s business community, as highlighted by Saqib and others above. The significance is evident through the inclusion in government advisory groups and recognized contributions. The cited sources, including interviews with reputable, independent global media, further reinforce the prominence. Instead of debating the subject’s notability, efforts would be better spent refining and improving the article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as I still don't see a consensus (even after disregarding second "votes" that were cast). A source review could be helpful as well as arguments based in policy. Opinions, both pro and con, based on who he is related to, are not useful to an AFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Case study by a business school on a subsidiary company of Dawood Hercules, where Samad Dawood is mentioned in three places as the parent company's CEO, e.g. " the organization’s sustainability perspective and the journey it took to transform the dream of Mr. Samad Dawood, the CEO of Dawood Hercules Corporation, into a reality"
Routine coverage of awards ceremony, briefly mentions Dawood and another member getting certificates of appreciation
✘No
ABC News (United States) "Titanic submersible victim’s deaths ‘brought the world together,’ Dawood family member says"[58]
Short interview with Samad Dawood on his grief following his brother's death in an accident, primary source. (Please see article for full URL: source assessment template doesn't work with full YouTube links with separators.)
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Comment: I have just added an additional source from Bloomberg.com, a reputable and independent news outlet, further strengthening the subject’s notability. The table is impressive, though I am unclear why some quotes are not considered significant coverage, as they seem to meet GNG criteria:
- The Reuters article is based on a direct interview with the subject.
- The 2016 Express Tribune article by Salman Siddiqui, from one of Pakistan’s leading English-language newspapers, features prominent quotes from the subject.
Delete Not every single businessman from Pakistan becomes notable just for being involve in a business inside Pakistan. BLP lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and by looking at image it seems it is a case of COI. 39.34.141.22 (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure why you haven't logged in yet, especially since you seem to have a deeper understanding than the average user. Check THIS VIDEO out to see that the involvement extends beyond Pakistan. - Crosji (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with Wikishovel's table above - I think Profit's article is about Engro so I would not count it as significant coverage about Dawood (I only found a few quotes from him in that article). 202.47.50.250 (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am truly impressed by the expertise and subtlety of this contribution. It appears, however, that this necessitates you remaining anonymous and refraining from responding to my comments, which is quite unfortunate. Crosji (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who revert the initial deletion/redirect, I should probably comment as well (especially since the lack of discussion was the reason for my revert). I'm not familiar with how these discussions usually go, but going off the list provided in WP:NALBUM, I'd say it passes on at least the second of the criteria, since the album has appeared on the Korean "Circle Album Chart" recording a highest position of #7. The article also has several references which would allow it to pass the first criteria, but there's also references in there which I would not consider reliable or independent (KTown4u for example is an online store, not a reliable news outlet). Whether this is enough too keep the article, I leave for other editors to decide.DragonFury (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have more input on whether this passes inclusion criteria under WP:NALBUM? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the issue though. This list could easily be merged back into the main article with no length or accessibility issues arising, which is what I assume SPLITLIST concerns. SirMemeGod21:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But then what will be the title of the merged list? keep the title List of fictional canines in animation? You suggest to merge the dogs into this, correct? I am not opposed to your proposal nor to a merge back if other users do no think that this list and other that are currently splits from the general list are suitable WP:SPLITLISTs. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried to draftify this, but they were accused of page-move vandalism when they did so and were informed that sources could be found on Google. I tried Googling, and got a bunch of non-independent/unreliable (blog posts, press releases, etc.); of course, those sorts of sources don't actually prove notability. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I looked hopefully for some RS, based on the edit summary that you mentioned, but only found passing mentions in a very few reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May i know to concrete reason why this page is nominated for the deletion?. Nepal Police Club currently competing in Central Asian Club Volleyball Championship and many people are searching about the club. I think it's more than enough to have page for the club. NiseEdits (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club-level volleyball in any nation (outside Argentina, Brazil, Europe or former Eastern Bloc nations) generally doesn't meet notability. Nate•(chatter)23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - reason being that I can't read local media from non-English sources and there are some in English which suggests that there may be more in other languages. Examples 1 and 2. I would like to see more good quality independent sources (particularly in other local languages) to be sure the GNG standard has been met. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page
2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject
3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)
4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject
All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet.
WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [59], [60], [61]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [62], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 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.
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 propose this page for deletion because no Australian soldier named General Robert "Bill" Cawthome, seconded to Pakistan, ever existed. Several media outlets mistakenly refer to this nonexistent individual as the co-founder of the Inter-Services Intelligence, instead of Major General Sir Walter Joseph "Bill" Cawthorn, an Australian who served as the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army. While newint.org correctly identifies Cawthorn in this role, it incorrectly refers to him as "R. Cawthorne." Additionally, Dr. Hein G. Kiessling, who has extensive connections within Pakistan's political, military, and intelligence circles, authored Faith, Unity, Discipline: The ISI of Pakistan in 2016, which highlights Walter as the co-founder of the Inter-Services Intelligence. The Civil and Military Gazette of Lahore also supports this, confirming Walter's appointment as Deputy Chief of Staff. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found another article originally by Peter Hohnen on Sir Walter Joseph Cawthorn (1896–1970), published in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 13, 1993. This further reinforces my argument that Robert "Bill" Cawthome never existed and is actually being confused with Walter Joseph "Bill" Cawthorn. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The same source by Hein Kiessling that the nom is ruining with their disruptive editing in this edit states: Established in the wake of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-48 by British officer Major General Robert Cawthorne, the then deputy chief of staff in the Pakistan Army. In addition, the book by S. K. Dutta states here: Generals of Pakistan and the ISI chiefs, retired and serving, have great admiration for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). One of them described the ISI as the 'most dreaded organization of South Asia'. For Pakistanis, South Asia means India. This sadism dominates the character of this infamous institution, which was created by an Australian-born British Major General Robert Cawthome of the Pakistan Army in 1948. This was the parting gift of the British forces to the Pakistanis. He was so favoured by the Pakistani generals that he was subsequently posted as Australian High Commissioner to Pakistan, where he developed unique close relationships with Iskander Mirza and Gen. Ayub, who were responsible for the derailment of democracy in Pakistan from the very beginning of its creation. Additionally, Amit Bagaria states in his book here: ISI was structured to be operated by officers from the three main military services, and to specialize in the collection, analysis, and assessment of foreign military and non-military intelligence. It was the brainchild of former British Indian Army Major General, Sir Robert Cawthome, then Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army, who selected Colonel Shahid Hamid to set up the agency. Truly a very premature nomination created on a whim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Hein Kiessling ever mention a Robert Cawthorne? There is literally NO reference to a Robert Cawthorne anywhere in the book. You're blatantly ignoring all the evidence right in front of you and cherry-picking random sources to support your weak argument. Tell me, would an Indian author really have more insight into Pakistan's agency than Dr. Kiessling, a PhD who literally wrote an entire book on the subject and is renowned for his connections with the Pakistani military? WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the publisher's note. Additionally, are you suggesting that we should dismiss all these sources by Indian authors solely because they are Indian? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there's plenty on the TikTok incident, and I just added a short (about 1 paragraph) cite from New Yorker and an entire article from SCMP from just three weeks ago. Article needs to have some more support for their role in the global glycine market -- it's verifiable (see, e.g., [71]) but notability is from the TikTok incident which continues to be reported on. Oblivy (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A cool person in the marching arts, but he sadly does not have any coverage save for a mention of death and an induction into a governing body's hall of fame. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Myron was a person who avoided the spotlight but was still well known and recognized in an activity that itself has very little outside coverage. He dedicated over thirty years of his life to pushing the artistic boundaries of this activity and deeply shaping the individuals who participated in it with him. You can see evidence of that in his DCI Hall of Fame Induction video at 2:15: "The feelings of love and admiration were truly palpable to all in attendance (of his Vanguard Hall of Fame induction ceremony). Indeed on that Saturday morning, Vanguard Hall was packed with friends and former members from Myron's history in drum corps." Also in Halftime Magazine's epitaph, Santa Clara Vanguard alum, Jeremy Van Wert quotes Rosander as saying, "If you think I’m here about winning a championship, you are dead wrong; I’m here because I care about the men and women you will become in the years after you leave Santa Clara Vanguard. I care about the human inside the uniform."
Currently, all of the sources, aside from his obituary and Hall of Fame bio, are from places where he was employed. That simply does not cut it for a biography. For an example of a person involved in drum corps that is also notable, see Bill Bachman. The difference between Rosander and Bachman is that Bachman has tertiary and secondary sources from reputable magazines and scholarly journals that discuss his work. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Chris Webb and Capterra are secondary sources. What is the sudden interest in a page that is there since 10 years and is fairly similar to any other page about software products or companies. WalterWartenweiler (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during New page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Bangladeshi streaming-only series. Of the two references, one is a review and the other is a link to their own commercial. Article was deleted in 2023 due to creation by a banned user and recreated February 2024 by a new user . North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another potentially endless list of examples of the trivial fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it; no need for another potentially endless list of trivial examples. —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the (non primary) sources here even mention the documentary, they're all on La Légende des seigneurs assassins (which this is a documentary about the making of??? why would someone make an article on the making of film and not the actual main film???). Even with that all the sources here are quite regional French sources under what is required from NFILM, so I have no clue if that other film is notable (could be, just judging off what's in the page). This was deleted on frwiki 3 years ago; I think this and several related articles (Thierry Mauvignier, Dylan Besseau, Guillaume Gevart) may have some promotional stuff going on here and on simple wikipedia but it is difficult to tell what exactly is happening here. There is this I found in a search which might be ok but it is the only thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dylan Besseau: or to Thierry Mauvignier#Biography. (Aside: replying to the nominator's question, the article they quote states: "Although this institutional project was initially intended as a making-of, it has become a work in its own right, surpassing the reputation that Thierry Mauvignier's short film was expected to obtain - the greatest irony for a film that was intended to be rather confidential') -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)20:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No significant independent coverage, failure to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians. Also, the use of IMDb website tells us a lot. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Getting a song into one episode of a TV show was a nice break, but building an article around that one achievement violates WP:BLP1E. Otherwise she gets occasional softball interviews in specialist magazines (e.g. [72]) but she seems to be a local/regional musician with little reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also found an AllMusic staff written bio here which together with the references from Rolling Stone, Pop Matters and others shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be the standard style for OOC articles and the GNG is passed, and of course it's four years off so right now it's all planning and no actual events have occurred. Nate•(chatter)23:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. It's a more detailed process than just tagging something with failing NCORP. And it takes months to put these together. The above organizing committee is just one of the steps to go through. If you are concerned about how this one is going, you might consider joining the dialogues at that project, before you start listing their works for deletion. 23:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)— Maile (talk)
So what? There are WikiProjects for many things, it doesn't mean they get to ignore our notability guidelines. The Olympics are 4 years away, if it can't be made ready yet then it shouldn't be in mainspace. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article probably describes a person who does not exist, and is a composite of several sources. Four sources are cited in the article, each referring to a different person.
Source 1 is an article about U Kyaw Win, the founder of Myanmar May Flower Bank. The article also mentions U Kyaw Myint, the owner of Golden Flower Co., Ltd, but this is not reflected in the Wikipedia article.
Source 2 introduces U Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry under the Ministry of Industry 1. He is not related to U Kyaw Win or U Kyaw Myint, the owner of Golden Flower Co., Ltd.
Sources 3 and 4 present "Pansay" Kyaw Myint, a Namkham militia leader and elected Member of Parliament. He is not related to any of the individuals described in sources 1 and 2. Nux-vomica 1007 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U Kyaw Win, the founder of Myanmar May Flower Bank is the Kyaw Win discussed in the last paragraph of Chinese people in Myanmar § Commerce and industry. This is not an article about this individual. This article is titled "Kyaw Myint" and has been about Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry, from the beginning. Information about Kyaw Win was erroneously added to the article in Special:Diff/307034345. There is a revision with content only about Kyaw Win, in Special:PermanentLink/1247585806. There are various sources about Kyaw Win, who is sometimes called "May Flower" Kyaw Win to differentiate him from other people named Kyaw Win (an example of another Kyaw Win: Kyaw Win).—Alalch E.00:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry under the Ministry of Industry is the subject of this article. He does not appear to meet WP:N. As of my writing this comment, the article correctly covers only him.
The "Pansay" Kyaw Myint is indeed a third person. Information about him was added in Special:Diff/600987091. I have not yet looked into his notability.
Keep: she's in the recurring/supporting cast of various (post 2015 (ie post 1st AfD)) notable programmes, so that she meets WP:NACTOR and deletion is not necessary in my opinion. But obviously renaming the page without the (voluntary?) typo is necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When becomes as a redirect, Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays. Makes it some knowledge about this barangay. Soft deletion if not redirected, resulting the article links were comes in various articles, which is problematic due of lack of sources. When the vote changed in keep, unless the reliable sources and information are available for this article. TentingZones1 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. Harmless storm index article. It seems that the nominator isn't at all familiar with these types of pages (and I've created numerous SIA's). The name Hugo has been used in more than one basin, so the name perfectly qualifies for a storm index article; and there's a strong possibility that it gets re-used in the future since it has been included in the list of names for the 2024–25 European windstorm season. No valid reasons for deletion. CycloneYoristalk!05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm aware of WP:SETNOTDAB, and it doesn't change my view: where a SIA consists of only two entities, where one is clearly the primary topic (and in this case, the other entity, the 2018 windstorm, doesn't even have its own article), hatnotes are a more efficient method of handling the situation than a full-fledged list. And as for Yoris's argument, WP:CRYSTAL applies - future systems sharing the name can be handled at the time they actually happen.
On the latter point there also exist counterexamples - such as 1935 Labor Day hurricane's hatnote. Don't think it is even that odd to confuse tropical and non-tropical cyclones - the term "storm" can be quite ambiguous for an uninitiated reader. On the former point, I repeat my previous question. JavaHurricane12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's likely because the 1935 hurricane is unnamed (i.e. has no official name), and was named "Labor Day" because it made landfall on that exact date. However, I see no counterexamples for storms that have official names, at least none that I could find. CycloneYoristalk!03:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be largely promo for the business. Sources are interviews or profiles of the company. He's a doctor that does at-home visits, which is rather routine. I find nothing in news or other searches that would help us prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I created the article after learning of the Omega Engineering incident, which was a notable computer sabotage attack in American history. Arcline has been acquiring companies, like Omega Engineering, and I simply wanted to create the article for the parent company. Note: At least 3 companies have Wikipedia articles that link to the parent company, Arcline. These companies also have subsidiaries which could make use of the Arcline article as a focal point. More can be added to the article but, nevertheless, I leave it in your competent hands. Usedbook (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur sports person. In terms of WP:SPORTBASIC, the only coverage I can find is the stuff that I've added to the article. Most of which is not independent (like "listings" on personnel sheets of orgs with which the subject has a connection like these: [73][74][75]; Which, even if they were independent, are far from in-depth coverage). Or ROTM "match report" type passing mentions (like these: [76][77]). In terms of WP:GNG, we barely have enough sources to establish even the sub-stub that we have. And certainly insufficient sources to expand any biographical information (DOB, place of birth, education, etc). A search in Irish news sources returns little to nothing. In the Irish Independent family of regional/national papers for example, all I can find are thesetwo trivial passing mentions. Similar searches, in news sources like the Irish Examiner or Irish Times or RTE.ie, return nothing at all. Nothing. Not even trivial passing mentions. Notability is not established. Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know nothing about how significant American football is in Ireland. That said, being one of the initial inductees into the Hall of Fame for American football in Ireland suggests he was at a minimum a pretty big frog in a little pond. Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those odd instances where Wikidata and the article history include what look like several claims to notability that are completely unmentioned in our present article. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation and the 2023 recipient of their Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal for an outstanding contribution to navigation [78]. He is also the 2023 recipient of the Dennis Gabor Medal and Prize[79]. They are all personal honors rather than indirect through his company. That looks arguably like a pass of WP:PROF#C3 and a double pass of #C2, if we agree that those are national-level awards for scholarly contributions and a highest-level honorary membership in a major scholarly society. Are they? He also has what looks like a strong citation record [80] in a field whose citation patterns are unfamiliar to me, arguably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 4 sources and all are poor. Source 1 has no coverage or even passing mention about the subject. Source 2 is deadlink. Source 3 has entry and Source 4 is a deadlink. No sources on the page with significant coverage to pass notability and this page also seems like promotion of an event held by law school students in Pune India. WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is winning an Nari Shakti Puraskar award enough for WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC? I don't see any WP:SIGCOV for this subject but she appears to have a significant academic track record, for which she won the aforementioned award.
Comment. I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR due to the awards. Also worth saying is that the nominator of this discussion only had 11 edits before nominating this article, all of them made on a single day in 2022. Badbluebus (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to find SIGCOV for the Sherman Dam besides this one newspaper article from 1963. Otherwise, all mentions appear to be trivial in nature, indicating it fails GNG and WP:NBUILD. Perhaps others will have more luck. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you are just randomly posting anything with the name appearing in it. If that were enough, almost everything would have a Wiki article. We are talking about reliable and significant coverage from secondary sources, not literally any Google hit. I can't really check the newspaper ones to see if those are major though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources identified by @Reywas92 are a mixed bag, but the U of Nebraska museum article and the Foxnebraska article are both significant coverage. Per WP:GEOLAND dams can be notable with significant independent coverage, and as Reywas92 says the article includes the reservoir which doesn't have its own article. Oblivy (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether this article should be Deleted or Redirected to Jana Jonášová. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Two article instances which have developed in parallel over the years. There is additional information in this one which can be merged, and then a redirect can simplify while maintaining the history attribution. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge seems both technically simple and unlikely to be controversial, though if I had to pick a title I'd actually do LONGi Green Energy Technology into LONGi, since the latter title seems sufficient to uniquely identify the subject. Would anyone object to doing this reverse merge, so that LONGi is the final title, and additionally doing so immediately and closing this discussion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 24 September 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 Merge and, if so, a decision on an appropriate target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We still need to settle on one Merge target if that is an appropriate ATD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability, her achievements (even if they are correct) are in youth level. she never won anything in a major event. the article tries to sell her as a world and Asian senior medalist. Sports2021 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an article does not prevent it from being recreated when more sources emerge. Having to be remade again is a given and is not a reason against deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Just a point of information, an AFD closer can not close a discussion with a decision to "Move" an article because that is an editing decision. So, if you want to Move this article, "vote" Keep and then have a Move discussion afterwards on the article talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neutral on keeping the article, but just wanted to say that the suggestions of moving it to Next Northern Territory general election are misplaced. "Next" is used in election article titles when the date of the next election is uncertain. However, Northern Territory has fixed-term parliaments and the next election must take place in 2028, so the current title is correct. Number5701:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Known as "Ian" rather than Donald, which may assist your searches. Plenty of coverage on Trove and I've added some of them to the page. Got more results for the typo "Mc"Millan.[92]Jevansen (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have a review of the new content additions. Also, please do not move an article that is the subject of an AFD discussion during the AFD. It confuses our editing tool, XFDcloser which doesn't understand why the article is at a different name. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability, most probably everything in this article is fake. he never won a gold medal at the Asian Games or 2019 Asian Senior Championships! he never participated in any major event. Sports2021 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Benares brass" isn't a thing; it's just brass items made/sold in Varanasi. Just like there isn't a page for "Benares trinkets", there doesn't need to be one for Benares brass. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that 'Benares brass' isn't a thing. At least, not in the metallurgical sense, as a particular brass alloy. I may be wrong - place-specific alloys do sometimes turn up, owing to oddities of local material supply.
But I'm not convinced that 'brass and brasswork of Benares' isn't a thing, just based on the sources already attached to the article. Is brass manufacture a significant and distinctive industry specific to Benares? Now that's certainly a thing, and there are many such locations where particular forms of metalworking are both distinct (the place is significant to the craft of brassworking) and locally economically important (brass working is significant to the place). On my own doorstep, an article on 17th to 19th century brassworking around Bristol and the Avon valley would be very welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's been a while since I've looked at this topic. All things considered, before I research the topic any further, perhaps changing it to a stub article would be a better move than deletion. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be no coverage outside of WP:TRADES publications. The coverage I could find consists of press releases, sponsored articles, and routine coverage. I'm unable to access sources 2 and 5 but it is very unlikely that they contain enough coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.
Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:
1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.
2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.
3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.
I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.
It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?
Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:
The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.
I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.
Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.
Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.
To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."
I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has become quite ridiculous. The content of the page cannot be based on subjective opinion of a user, or terminology they think should be used, but rather the information in the sources. Xardwen has now added the same unsourced information and libelous material multiple times, and subjective synthesis of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and not your blog. Sources cannot be removed based on your subjective opinion of whether information is important, or how "scientific" a source is, or your biased opinion on noteworthiness of the subject's work. And I say it is biased because Xardwen has already engaged in forum shopping and has accused me of COI, and was thusly already resolved by administrators for being baseless. Meanwhile, he states he in the subject's "field" and the address associated with his account links to the San Francisco metropolitan area, in particular Berkeley. It is abundantly clear that he is somehow linked to the subject and has been obsessively editing the page to harass and malign them, which he has expressed himself "with savage delight". Hemelina is also a brand new account that is likely Xardwen's sockpuppet to further target this page, having just been created to install the same baseless claims and remove information. Xerxescience (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well. Whoopsies. Regardless, I have no personal or financial connection to the subject, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have no idea who User:Hemelina is, either. I have opened a "Request for Comment" on the article's Talk page; I hope that this matter will shortly be moved into the hands of more experienced editors.Xardwen (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion of an article subject and whether or not you believe they "deserve" an article on this project. None of your opinions are based in Wikipedia policy which, along with consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is WP:NACADEMIC and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely, WP:GNG. Notability isn't determined based on editors' opinion, much less accusations against your fellow editors, but based on reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV. Some analysis of sources was done here and I thank you for that start. Those who disagree with the nominator's proposal would spend their time more productively by addressing their evaluation of sources or by finding better ones. It is also clear that none of you have participated in an AFD discussion because it helps the closer if you, except for the nominator, cast a bolded "vote" like Keep or Delete or Redirect. Assessing consensus isn't a vote count but some times when editors post long comments, like in this AFD, a bolded vote makes it obvious what outcome you want to happen. Here's hoping we get some participation from AFD regulars who could also offer a source assessment. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond.
Referenced articles state Al-Shayeb's role in having "led" / "helmed" (100+ year old magazine by the American Chemical Society) multiple major publications that have each received significant coverage, and cited by multiple reputable perspective pieces as having major impact or "shift our understanding" of how we think about viruses and other elements https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02975-3https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0341-zhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00574-z These discoveries are influential in the fields of microbiology and gene editing, as independently outlined by multiple different editors in the 2021 in science and 2022 in science pages, which highlighted major discoveries of the year. Several of these discoveries also have their own separate Wiki pages. Considering the Wiki reference search shows 3,090 results, and over 100 different news articles, I addressed only some concerns mentioned.
As referred to above by @Pantrail, Al-shayeb's work on new CRISPR tools is discussed as the cutting edge of genetic engineering technology in the 2020 Nobel Prize lecture with Al-Shayeb credited by name, and in the 2024 book Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl. To say "this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone" is a fallacious and subjective view of science. By that standard, nobody qualifies since nobody does science alone. The article and sources state that he led the work, not that he or any scientist did it alone.
Prestigious journals like the Nature Portfolio are known for their rigorous standards, only accepting "ground-breaking" research. These journals presumably similarly carefully select reviewers who are leading experts, and reviewing for said journals is a testament to the subject's significant authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.
The person has also had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
The published work is in development by major companies demonstrating real-world impact beyond academia. The work on RNA-guided therapies highlights how the research has translated directly into medical innovation by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Recognition from mainstream sources like Forbes Magazine (from which there are at least 5 different articles on subject) and other outlets also indicates broad public and professional acknowledgment of his influence beyond the academic realm. This shows substantial impact in both the academic sphere and the wider industry. The nominator claimed Al-Shayeb has affiliation with the editorial board of Forbes Magazine or the Daily Californian multiple times now and suggested that it diminishes their credibility, but provided no evidence, or that this presumed affiliation led to the coverage. He also conveniently dismissed the outlets or sources curated by industry experts such as GEN, c&en, CRISPR Medicine, Nature Magazine News, Science Magazine News, Futurism (credibility), LiveScience (rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by NewsGuard) or the work in TechCrunch, The Independent that corroborate the same reporting that the nominator claimed to be "non-credible or sensationalistic"
As the nominator, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to "vote" or not, but I didn't see anything on the AfD guidelines page prohibiting me from doing so, thus:
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
First of all, "significant impact" seems highly subjective, but that aside: what counts as a "significant impact" here, and does this person's research qualify? They were first author on a paper describing unusual archaeal extrachromosomal DNA elements; this is interesting, but speaking as a fellow microbiologist, it does not strike me as a very impactful discovery, but more of a niche curiosity. Another listed publication (I thought they were listed as co-first author, but I seem to have been mistaken? Need to double-check) describes some very small virus-derived CRISPR-associated genome-editing proteins; again, this is interesting, but did this really leave a lasting impression on the field? The CRISPR field seems to move quite fast, and my understanding is that other, smaller gene-editing proteins (e.g. TnpB) have been discovered since; moreover it's not clear to me that the proteins discovered by Al-Shayeb et al. were that transformative in terms of their applications, although this may just be my ignorance showing. Finally, the third paper listed (on which Al-Shayeb was co-first author) describes some of the largest known phages at the time; again, interesting, but is this really an impactful find? Was this a major addition to our understanding of microbiology, or is it just a neat addition to the list of already known large phages?
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
Has this person received a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level? According to the article, they were nominated for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship; the NSF website states that they plan to issue 2,300 GRFs this fiscal year. Does this qualify as a "prestigious award at a national level"? "Prestigious" is obviously subjective, but I was under the impression that this referred to something closer to the level of, say, the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, of which twenty-four are issued each year. As for their other listed accolades, being on the Forbes/Arab America 30 Under 30 lists does not constitute an academic award, and thus does not apply here.
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
I do not believe this applies here.
The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
Does not apply here.
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
Does not apply here.
The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
I do not believe this applies here.
The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
Does not apply here.
It seems like the only argument for keeping this article is that their research is "significantly impactful"; as I've said above, I believe this assessment to be highly subjective, but I personally do not feel that their contributions meet this threshold. At best, these seem like contributions that should be mentioned in the articles for Archaea, CRISPR-Cas genome editing, and Bacteriophages (as they already are); were any of these discoveries so ground-breaking that their (in some cases, co-) discoverer merits their own page?Xardwen (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the research is not "significantly impactful" by Wikipedia's criteria. The individual behind the now-deleted accounts @Xerxescience and @Pantrail worded the content of the article to sound more impactful than it actually is. For example, why is it that Mr. Al-Shayeb "led" the work (as written in the Wikipedia article in question) that he co-first-authored with others while being supervised by his graduate school advisors, yet Mr. Al-Shayeb "supervised" the work (again, as the now-banned accounts wrote in the Wikipedia article in question) that was first-authored by another individual? For example, Mr. Al-Shayeb's co-founder and CEO, Dr. Jacob Borrajo, is first author on the most recent manuscript mentioned in the Wikipedia article in question and is also continuing to move the work forward as a current executive of Amber Bio (apparently without Mr. Al-Shayeb's "supervision"). In this example, it is clear to anyone in the field that Dr. Borrajo made the most substantial contributions to this work that is one of the Mr. Al-Shayeb's key accomplishments, yet Dr. Borrajo does not have a Wikipedia page. The same could be said for some of the other co-first authors and supervisors on the studies listed on Mr. Al-Shayeb's Wikipedia page.
If one were to argue that Mr. Al-Shayeb somehow meets the WP:NACADEMIC standards, then all 2000-3000 people issued an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship each year should have a Wikipedia page. Forbes 30 under 30 is not an academic award and uses irrelevant metrics such as how much wealth someone has as key criteria for selection, but if it were, then do we give all 600 people recognized with the Forbes 30 under 30 award each a Wikipedia page? And the tens of thousands of people who graduate with PhDs from prestigious universities and contribute work to renowned scientific journals; do we give all of them a Wikipedia page? No, because the line must be drawn somewhere. In this case, Mr. Al-Shayeb clearly falls on the side of the line that does not warrant this page to exist. Hemelina (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be deleted because the subject clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The subject is not listed on any academic institution's website as being currently affiliated. There is no publicly available evidence that the subject has ever held an independent position at any academic institution that wasn't under the direct supervision of other faculty members. The subject is presented on the article as a "biotech executive", yet the subject is not currently listed as an executive on any current company's website. Disturbingly, two now-blocked accounts who turned out to be the same person, @Pantrail and @Xerxescience, repeatedly deleted verifiably true and well-cited edits made by multiple independent contributors. I will remind the individual behind these accounts that information cannot be libelous or defamatory if it is true. The individual behind these accounts, who I deduce is either the subject of this article or financially tied to the subject of this article, also reverted the article to present misleading information that promoted the financial interests of the article's subject. Wikipedia is not the place to advance individual financial interests. Please delete. Hemelina (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hemelina, first, you can only cast one bolded "vote" so I have struck your duplicate vote. Secondly, you have only been editing a week and have made a total of 12 edits, most of them to this article and AFD. You have no other global contributions with this account so I'm assuming you typically edit with a different account since you seem to have the Wikipedia jargon down pat. So, at least for me, your opinion carries less weight. I'd still like to hear from some "uninvolved" editors as all participants seem to have some sort of COI with this subject. LizRead!Talk!01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We really need some uninvolved and non-sock editors to review this article and its sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Note, this guy is a predoc fellow as per Google Scholar, which by definition means WP:NACADEMIC almost certainly does not apply. His H-Index is extremely high for a pre-doc, as per google scholar. [93], so maybe WP:NACADEMIC could apply in the future, but it is nowhere near high enough to apply right now.
Much of the sourcing is not independent or reliable or only mentions the subject in passing. Much of the sourcing that talks about his start up seems like promotional PR that goes along with any business.
The current writing on the article is strained and tortuous. At one point, there is a mention that Shayeb’s work is cited by a Nobel Laureate? I’d half-argue for WP:TNT even if the subject was notable enough.
Non-notable musician and professor fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:MUSICIAN. This article is one of a series of promotional articles (a walled garden of sorts) surrounding the so-called Empathism "movement" and the poet Menotti Lerro (who "invented" Empathism and wrote it's manifesto), and the "award" given to the people who adhere to Empathism. Other articles of questionable notability are the other "members" as well as Lerro's Cilento International Poetry Prize and others. Two SPA's are creating numerous articles that all connect back to Lerro (hence the "walled garden"), whose article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted for lack of notability. The whole group of articles are WP:PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 24 September 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.
Delete. This term doesn't appear exclusive to Loury. McWhorter uses it (here, here), and Steele uses it in a very different context. Regardless, I'm not finding coverage of the concept itself, to the extent it exists, or evidence that it's a unified concept among the scholars who have deployed it. I also don't see an appropriate redirect to White fragility since the article does not currently use the term in discussing McWhorter's criticism of DiAngelo. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of Cortador's sources, the first two papers (by Steele) are actually the same paper published in two different venues (one a journal, one a book chapter, still the same article). Apart from the headline, the term "black fragility" does not appear once in the paper's text. The book written by Carter, the "social scientist," is self-published. (The author appears to be a corporate trainer/consultant.) The article by Gobodo-Madikizela has a single reference in it to "black fragility": "What concerns me is the trap of black fragility, when the reaction to the behaviour of racists is interpreted as if the particular racist actually is in a position of power in relation to the person who is the target of the racist slur." Thus, Steele and Gobodo-Madizkizela do not constitute WP:SIGCOV and Carter's work is not a reliable source under WP:SPS. Thus, none of these sources contribute to a WP:GNG pass for this concept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close. First of all, the article is a wild failure of WP:NFCC, comprising mostly a three-paragraph quote (!). This is not the Manhattan Institute website, so we should not be hosting entire articles based nothing on that think tank's publication. Even if there were all the sources in the world about this subject, it's still a complete WP:TNT case. But it's also not notable, as far as I can tell. As per Dclemens1971's analysis above, we have exactly one independent reliable source. The question is where to redirect it. I'd recommend redirecting to White Fragility and adding a line there about some critics using "black fragility" (which would, of course, mean omitting most of the sourcing identified in favor of those which explicitly talk about DiAngelo). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relisting. With the source review, I'm not convinced this is a Keep but we do need consensus on the outcome and whether or not a Redirect is appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect – Dclemens1971 shows this term has extremely minor usage and does not appear to constitute a coherent and consistent idea between the few people who use it. It's simply a rhetorical device for a snappy headline in reference to "white fragility." Since it doesn't exist as an independent idea it shouldn't deserve even passing mention elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so should not be redirected. Should be WP:TNT for the massive copyvio quote. Dan • ✉20:54, 24 September 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.
There are no secondary sources that provide information about this person; the entire article is based on primary sources and the article itself admits that little is known outside of government copyright documentation. As a result of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Bill Hansen, he is in the credits as an editor for a variety of television programs and related media that may become Wikipedia articles in the future. Most of all, he has composed music with a variety of notable composers. The other references can likely be found, as requested in the first banner. Starlighsky
Future notability is not a consideration at AfD. And his notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from other composers he may have worked with, or from projects he may have worked on that may (or more likely may not) be notable. What we need is reliable, secondary sources. Can you provide those?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t have biographies on every single person who ever lived and worked in the movies or on TV. We are not, nor ever been, a directory of everyone in “The Business” like ASCAP or IMDB. I hope everyone understands why we strive to be more reliable. This page has to be deleted because there’s not enough information about the person, other than a bare minimum of what he edited. According to our policy: “Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether someone has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources.” Sorry. Bearian (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need reliable sources to verify notability, not editors' opinions that a subject is important. You have a few more days to find those sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the film The Game of Their Lives and it has sigcov on him. I kept a notebook with the content discussing him that I'll have to find. I believe one scene had a player saying something like 'here's [North Korean] newspaper headlines I kept on all of our players' – so it's clear that the players (especially the significant ones like Yang) had sigcov. Let me draftify and I'll turn it into something good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Just realized from this that documentaries can count as sigcov, thanks! May be able to write some articles based on subjects covered in documentaries. seefooddiet (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Due to the lack of sources, the tendency is for it to be deleted, but in fact this seems to be one of the most relevant players in North Korea. Svartner (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a review of sources, if they don't provide notability, then perhaps draftification is the more realistic closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reminding participants that WP:GNG has not been addressed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit00:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Clear consensus to Keep but it's not clear that sources verify content and establish GNG. This is the second relisting comment on this subject so if they do, please state that rather than give a "per" statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm failing to see the notability here. The references provided are just profiles and clearly doesn't have any SIGCOV. I'm not convinced of the established notability comment per GiantSnowman. Taking part in Olympics doesn't warranty any notability, if there aren't any sources backing it up. My search results also turned out nil and clearly no SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly one of the examples were requiring strict SIGCOV compliance is patently absurd. Where on earth are we supposed to go to find North Korean newspaper archives? I can only note that in a scene in the film The Game of Their Lives (regarding the 1966 North Korean team), one North Korean player showed a book full of newspaper headlines for the top players with the national team – so it is obvious that the sport was very well-covered at the time and I don't see why a few years later would have been any different. Another way to notability would be WP:ANYBIO if Kim received any of the top honors in North Korea, which would be either Merited Athlete or People's Athlete. Looking up his name (김정민) in relation to the title Merited Athlete (공훈체육인) I get results including a piece from the Minju Choson stating in the preview "화원1동에 입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소의 김정민,량은향 로동자부부 ... 공훈체육인칭호가 수여되였다. 로력훈장이 1명에게,국기훈장 제2급이 18명 . [Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang, workers of the Mangyongdae District Waterworks Management Office in Hwawon 1-dong, were awarded the title of Meritorious Sportsman.]" – I have a strong feeling this was him (esp. given that we have no other North Korean 'Kim Jong-min's) but I receive warning messages when entering the site so I can't look further. Searching his name in relation to the 'Mangyondae District Waterworks Management Office' ("입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소" "김정민") brings up another piece from the Rodong Sinmun further discussing 'Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang' ("화원1동에 입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소의 김정민, 량은향 로동자부부는 현대적인 살림집을 받아안고보니 우리 원수님의 은덕이 너무도 크고 ... [Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang, workers of the Mangyongdae District Waterworks Management Office in Hwawon 1-dong, received a modern house and realized that the grace of our Marshal was so great...]") but likewise I cannot access it further. IMO I'd like to keep this given how accomplished he is and how ridiculous it is to find North Korean newspaper sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree with BeanieFan11's argument - proving WP:GNG for a North Korean would be extremely difficult. At the same time, the article gives very little information about the subject and needs improving. It makes sense to draftify and find sources to add to it so that it can be more useful to readers.DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ideas of "No continued coverage" or "no lasting effect" is readily shown to be wrong by the second source, a 2023 academic book discussing the topic over multiple pages. In addition, we currently have multi-language coverage. "Video conference" should not suggest unimportance given the scope and period - event included 500 political parties and 10,000 individual representatives and was conducted in 2021 when China was still quite protective on COVID19 matters. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure how notable the book source cited is, as it's not an online reference. I can bring up news coverage of the event in 2021. Sourcing is largely in academic journals, into 2023 at least [94], where it's discussed as part of China's larger influence in the world. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for spotting. We should incorporate more journal articles.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. So, participants, do you believe the existing sources are sufficient for establishing GNG? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was written entirely from sources. Sources talk about news about the platform's activities, it is usually. All the facts that are in the article find confirmation in open independent sources. Jane230 (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – can't find any independent and secondary sources. The sources in the current version of the article are in fact one and the same source, a press release reprinted in four different places, with two of them being slightly rewritten but it's still the same source. --bonadeacontributionstalk11:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]