Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

25 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 24	October 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of mayors of a tiny town. The mayors have some hyperlocal significance, but is is part of the walled garden by the same Carmelopaedia editor. Fails WP:NLIST. Some of the people may have inherent notability, but that is as individuals. The intersection with Carmel-by-the-Sea is not encyclopaedic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list article is a kind of a “shell” housing a list of non-notable mayors of the small tourist town of Carmel, created as part of an effort to include all-things-Carmel on Wikipedia (sometimes called a “walled garden” or a cluster of dozens of promotional articles to booster the town; also known as “Carmelopedia”. The article may have been one of the UPE efforts of the creator. The article fails WP:NLIST criteria per WP guidelines; it is a non-notable subject (perhaps belonging on the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s website, however it’s apparently not even notable enough for that) and therefore falls into WP:SALAT territory. The references are hyper-local, mainly consisting of the small, weekly tabloid with a low circulation, The Carmel Pine Cone, which of course would report on run-of-the-mill local news like the mayor. Guidelines state that tabloid journalism is not considered significant coverage per WP:SBST. A few items are cited to Arcadia Pub which publishes the Images of America series of picture books marketed to the tourist trade (several discussions questioned the reliability of these books), or to "Valley Press of Santa Cruz" which seems similar to self-publishing. Only six of these mayors are Wiki-notable which is not enough to support this as a notable list. Netherzone (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, including Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:CSC. Does not fall [[WP:NLIST since that clearly says:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the arguments of Netherzone. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea wouldn't be notable, it's a small town, but its elections have been covered as far away as Sacramento, and there's enough commentary and sources that there's no good merge target. Lists of things or people not notable enough for their own page is a common way of keeping encyclopaedic information, as well. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if anything as a valid WP:SPINOUT. The list would be too long for Carmel-by-the-Sea, California and makes sense as a separate page. As Djflem states, it does not fail WP:NLIST. --Enos733 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the mayors in Carmel by the Sea is verifiable. I see the question here of whether there should be a stand-alone page or whether the list should be contained on the page about the city. To me, this question invokes WP:SIZE. As for the list itself, a complete list of mayors of a jurisdiction fits WP:CSC as it is a "short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." - Enos733 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm simply not convinced Wikipedia is the appropriate place for a list of mayors of a town of 3000 people sourced to hyper-local sources. This is an example of "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." Not seeing evidence this is an example of "recognised informational, navigation, or development purposes" to exempt from WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST. There don't seem to be any collective discussion of the town's mayors - just run-of-the-mill/hyperlocal coverage of individual elections. Of the six current bluelinks in the list, one is clearly not getting kept at AfD, four have rather shaky notability, and one is notable for very unrelated reasons. Given that, I can't see this being useful as a navigational aid. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for additional input and possibly a more clearer consensus as the consensus at the moment seems to be split between "Keep" and "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoarchitectonics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jargon term invented in 1999 that has never been adopted by the wider community. I would just delete it as very little links to it. (If you really, really want the name then do a redirect to nanotechnology, but I am not in favor of that.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpomish

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. It's a place with landmass with valid coordinate. Existence is not notability. One of those best, biggest, tallest, "-est... in xxx" trivia articles. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, Asia, and Uzbekistan. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to suggest both this page and Khazret Sultan be merged to Hisar Range. There aren't substantive reliable sources about either of them – the only coverage is the peakbagger database and the blog post by the climbers. Unless there was independent coverage of the climb or the peaks, I don't think standalone pages are needed. Maybe there's an Uzbek source indicating there's a local interest in this superlative? Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 There's not even anything to merge. Something that simply exists, and can only be verified by name in the blogosphere of personal websites and blogs shouldn't exist on Wikipedia at all. Like the shed in your property, or a hill on your farm. It shouldn't be merged, because the bloggy source do not meet contents policy per WP:RS Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antik Mahmud

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence or claim of notability. None of the sources provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Comics and animation, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability found for this student. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A well-known YouTuber. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Having over 1,000,000 subscribers and over 153,000,000 views on YouTube, seems pretty notable in my opinion. But following, WP:NPOV, there's more than enough credible sources aswell as editor/writer(s) of those WP:RS article makes it more essential than ever. Don't know the point/reason of create/have(ing) a deletion talk for this article. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improve

He is notable, but the problem is there. I think the lack of proper writing, the need to add more information, and the carrier is empty. UzbukUdash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash, I kinda agree with you. He’s definitely notable, but yeah, I see the problem too. The writing feels rough in spots, and there’s definitely more information that could be added, I’m working on it in my sandbox and trying to develop it further. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve as per @Bruno pnm ars and @UzbukUdash Keemstar148 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC) — Keemstar148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment 1 million subscribers is not, and will never be, notable by Wikipedia's definition of the word. Geschichte (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide references supporting your keep !votes to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Music Awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been tagged as barely-referenced for 13 years. I just did a search, and while there are lots of mentions, it's not clear they're all referring to the same awards, and I only found one article that seemed to deal with them at any length. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Keough

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing in article suggests nindependant notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lisa_Marie_Presley#Marriages_and_divorces -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by the previous voter, though a basic redirect to that section of Lisa Marie's article would probably suffice. Danny has a few minor acting and musical credits but would have never received any reliable media coverage outside of his marriage to a famous person. Thus, the nominator is correct about WP:NOTINHERITED. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whether inherited or not the fact is there are a lot of news coverage on him to meet the notability guidelines. I brought the page live from a redirect, because there is a lot of public interest on him now due to Lisa Marie's recent release of memoir. It was previously redirected, but there are a lot more coverage on him now. Here is another article that just came out 6 days ago. Darkm777 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moribund Oblivion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for years as possibly not notable. Turkish article also has no cites Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing suggests notability, just the usual self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some cites, including an RS stating it's the only Turkish band in the black metal genre to garner international attention. Thus the subject may well meet WP:MUSICBIO. There appear to be several reviews online - particularly in German, in specialist ezines. I will look for more sources when I get time. ResonantDis_tortion 15:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Furthermore, this band also has a profile page in Rock Hard, which is an WP:RSMUSIC, featuring multiple album reviews and articles (even if paywalled). See this link. I've added citations to the article. Other album reviews include [1] and [2]. With these - and the book citation - there's enough coverage to presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 18:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified above and those added to the article since nomination. There is now evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some to the page.

By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being the director general of NITDA isn't enough to demonstrate notability. I've removed some fluff, but I've checked a few more misleading cites, and just concluded this is probably some paid article full of soft mentions, and doesn't pass the strict test for a WP:BLP article. Instead it is a resume. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nom, you are right. I have gone through all the source and they never talked about him. They were only mentioning what he announced.--Gabriel (……?) 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At a critical look at the article, Subject can not stand alone from NITDA. Aside NITDA, what else was their impact and is their any source to confirm the notability?Tesleemah (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From your reason given then that calls for a delete and not a merge. Even Olusegun Obasanjo who commissioned the NITDA, biography was not mentioned there neither anyone who has been appointed as the chairman. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi can be mentioned in the NITDA article but not this full statement which contains his biography. Gabriel (……?) 10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being the "Director General" of the National Information Technology Development Agency of the Nigerian government is enough to meet notability per WP:NPOL. Apart from being a position appointed by the President, he has taken the office twice by different Nigerian presidents. Since NPOL justifies appearance in multiple reliable sources, I can see some coverage in newspapers including bagging a honorary award. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that NPOL specifically says he should not be as it isn't a top level position. Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find sigcov in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NPOL, not only is the subject the current Director-General of the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), this is a role he has assumed twice under two Presidents. I can also see significant press coverage. B.Korlah (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to claim "significant press coverage" in a deletion discussion, you need to actually provide the links so that other editors (and closer) can determine if the claim is valid, or hyperbole. As for being appointed under two presidents, that has zero to do with notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as there is disagreement on whether the subject meets WP:NPOL. It would greatly help the case of editors arguing to Keep if they could bring in sources that would help establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to come into an agreement regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 in Turkish television

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

tagged uncited for many years and does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deproDed the page. I have seen other years taken to AfD. But why? This is a pretty standard way to approach history of television by country. Mexico has them, Korea has them, and so on. Turkey is a major country with a long history of television. What's the issue? Non-notable, how? I would !vote Keep but that would imply restoring all the other years. But I don't understand. It's very easy to source every event with books and/or news. And for general coverage, just open Yanardağoğlu, Eylem, Television in Turkey: Local Production, Transnational Expansion and Political Aspirations, Springer International Publishing, 2020; "The Transformation of the Media System in Turkey: Citizenship, Communication, and Convergence", Springer International Publishing, 2021; The Regulation of Turkish Network Industries. (2022), Springer International Publishing. A source for each and every programme broadcast is easily found. I am seriously confused.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep it vote keep. I don’t think that would implying restoring other years as some years in television are more notable than others. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK: Keep and restore all years. This year in Turkish television is notable and so are apparently all years I checked, given the existence of sources for individual events and about trends/years in the Turkish history of television. Also for navigation reasons.and procedural reasons; targeting one year after another to delete the whole range of articles (that precisely make sense as a whole) brick by brick is not a good idea when the general topic is notable.

some years in television are more notable than others. Maybe (I don't think so) but then, it seems you want to have ALL years of Turkish television deleted and I am very much against that idea. Is it your idea?

Another solution would be to change the approach by creating lists by decades and redirecting/merging the individual years (in)to the decades (2000s in Turkish television and so on) but I won't do it myself (as I favour individual years)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not proposed deleting all years and that is not my idea. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I had the wrong impression, my apologies. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there are only 4 years left in the category. The ones that have been deleted lately were, if I am not mistaken, in the 2000s and 2010s The other years haven't been created yet.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is about the 2004 article. To restore articles previously deleted at AfD, please see WP:DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, consider my !vote a simple/single Keep then (but restoring other years should also be done); this is part of a set and is justified in terms of navigation, that's what I mean. Notwithstanding the individual notability of this page, deleting random years one by one without considering this type of page in general or the whole is not a good approach. Also may I remind the nominator that WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overspecific page name/scope; notable events can be added to 2004 in Turkey. Geschichte (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am sorry but, again, I am very confused, how is this overspecific? This is pretty standard: have a look at Category:2004 in television by country please. Again, if you think Turkey has a less substantial history of television than, say, Brazil or Japan (I don't think so), considering a different organisation and redirect years to (not-yet-existing) pages about decades might make sense, but just deleting that year for that country (although it can be easily sourced) seems extremely confusing to me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the dire state of the article (and yes, I'm going by the current state of the article, and I'll explain why shortly) shows that it was a bad idea to start a page about 2004 in Turkish television. The "years in country" absolutely need to start with the basic year in the country, in this case 2004 in Turkey, and then branch out when size dictates so. Moreover, it would make sense to branch out to "2004 in Turkish media" before further sub-division into television, radio, cinema, press etc. As for other similar pages existing, I checked a dozen of the entries in the nabvbox, and most of them are embarrassingly bad. Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Malák

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is likewise an unsourced dump. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you look at his record on the International Ski Federation (FIS) website which is linked in his article, Malak competed in the 2010 Winter Olympics only, not the 2018 Winter Olympics. The FIS database is among the best kept athlete recording from the 1924 Winter Olympics onward. Chris (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Database sources don't comply the whole notability guideline (GNG). Following WP:NSPORTS2022, participation in tournaments is no longer considered saved from deletion. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching through sport.sk archives all I could find were a blurb on the Olympics, brief results/participation announcements, and the subject talking about himself. Nothing but stats from ifortuna.sk, nike.sk; zero hits from tipsport.sk; and stats hits for a different Michal Malák on hokejportal.net. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest fathers

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS, and persistent WP:BLP violation, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers. Absolutiva (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket FM (platform)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Commenthas a potential as over 100 mln downloads, and so on. WP NEXIST should be applied here before the final verdict. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-trivial coverage in Variety, Rest of World, and TechCrunch (meets RSP as being staff-written). Along with the sources in the article I think there's enough for WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of world article counts, but the other two are routine coverage of raised capital, no? (WP:CORPTRIV) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Tamás

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per IP: "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom, the article sourcing is almost entirely primary. It's possible that her anthology Spells might qualify for an article, but that alone isn't enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Ooty Glass Bridge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources (or evidence of WP:GNG) given at all, already exists as a draft so no reason for a duplicate draftification. A WP:BEFORE only brings up the likely non-independent keralatourism.org, although I do not speak Malayalam and am thus not able to look too in-depth into sourcing.

Expertise from Malayalam-speaking editors (or speakers of other languages of India, if the bridge has been discussed in Indian media beyond Kerala) would be more than welcome to help assess notability more properly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Kerala. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arimbra Hills, Malappuram. Page as it stands doesn't seem to meet requirement of WP:NBUILD which requires in-depth coverage in RS. That said, perhaps it will change in the future. Target is not obvious so redirect seems appropriate. JMWt (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Harlacher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, WP:NACTOR Polygnotus (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally un-sourced. — Maile (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and no inherent or visible GNG. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T&S Communications

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

due to concerns over notability and reliance on insufficiently independent sources. Wikipedia’s guidelines require significant coverage from reputable, secondary sources that demonstrate independent, in-depth reporting on the subject. However, if the article largely depends on primary sources, company-provided information, or promotional material, it lacks the unbiased, independent verification necessary to establish notability. Additionally, without documented, unique contributions or significant industry recognition that sets it apart from other companies, T&S Communications may not meet the standards for a standalone article Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jiaoriballisse: Please don't use AI to create discussions – use your own words to explain your reasoning. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2024–25 Nepal Premier League auctions and personnel signings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary WP:CFORK, as the coverage of this auction was reasonably low. This isn't the IPL where the auction is a massive deal, almost all other T20 franchise league tournaments don't need separate auction articles, and this is certainly the case here. Especially as almost all of the domestic players aren't notable, so this list doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the auction is low but it is very high compared to any asscoiate nation cricket league. and IPL is not cretaed in a day ot it has been pouplar in first season. So, better not delete the article as it can be usefull in future to know history. and this atricle doesn't only include about domestic players acuxtion but also foregin signing of player. Csknp (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Very high compared to any associate nation cricket league" doesn't mean it passes WP:GNG and doesn't solve the issue of it being an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Motor Company

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP: there is no direct and in-depth article about the company. The coverage is mostly Adam Revo so a redirect per WP:ATD is possible. Gheus (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I managed to find this [3], but it is WP ROUTINE, occasional not sigcov. Nothing more while doing WP BEFORE. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTN Family

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: I found a few mentions ([4], [5]) and a routine news article. Gheus (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a list at least; WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First League of Zagreb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure what is going on here, but no refs on the page for many, many years. I'm not seeing a way to find appropriate sources, perhaps the league only survived for a very short time idk. JMWt (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Croatia. JMWt (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because it lacks evidence of notability or existence. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liman National Type (Chinese) School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing found which would count towards notability standards as schools do not have assumed notability JMWt (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Malaysia. JMWt (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for almost 9 years. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labbaik TV

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I failed to verify if the channel is still active and there is no coverage about it. Gheus (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can’t find any sources to support it, so extremely unlikely to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Park, New Zealand

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once you take out the OR and the unreliable source (a real estate website) there is nothing to this article beyond demographics and list of schools, all sourced to databases. There is no SIGCOV in reliable sources to support an article. Not legally recognised either so NPLACE doesn't apply. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Alvernia High School (Jamaica)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years, nothing much found suggesting notability criteria have been met JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Jamaica. JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SenzMate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At the moment, it seems like it may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this company. The only other coverage I found was this interview I found in Lanka Business Online, which is an interview with little to no independent or secondary content. The Daily FT articles read like press releases, so I am inclined to exclude them based on the precautionary principle expressed in WP:ORGIND. May be a few more years before the requisite coverage exists for us to be able to write a proper article on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Sri Lanka. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: Currently doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. SirBrahms (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Chamoda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I searched and it does not seem to be notable in itself. Tagged uncited for years but I have no objection if anyone prefers to merge Chidgk1 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Sports, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mount Omurga. SirBrahms (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şifa University

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not automatically notable, but any public university is likely to be notable. This one, however, appears to be new, small and private. See [6]. As such, I would have thought it should pass WP:NORG to be notable. I have added it to the companies delsort. At this stage I have no view on whether it is notable or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Al-Saif

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t think being the father in law of the Crown Prince of Jordan makes a subject notable. Understandably he got some official recognition and publicity around his recent death, but there isn’t enough here for a stand alone bio. Anything we need to know about him is already included in the article about his daughter. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Show

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (22 September 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to initiate the deletion of the article once again, using the same argument from the first deletion discussion - "The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON." TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes per WP:DIVERSE which states Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. I'm attaching some sources which gives significant national and international coverage for the event. [7], [8] (coverage from an Indian reliable source), [9] and many more. The nominator has not any proper WP:Before. A simple Google search as World Defence show is turning up many reliable sources giving significant overage. 111.92.113.32 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing the attached sources - [1] - EDR Magazine is not an RS, [2]- Firstpost is not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424#Unreliable sources? FirstPost /TimeNow, [3] - Alarabiya is also not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 98#Alarabiya, reliable or not?. As a nominator, I have done required WP:BEFORE and also conducted the simple google search and the google news search as suggested by the IP. However, these efforts did not yield any reliable sources with significant coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A similar group of IPs, starting with the range 111.92.xx.xx, has been involved in editing another page about a military equipment manufacturing company from the Middle East. It wouldn't be surprising if they were all connected. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinapia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND, did not have significant coverage, and any coverage in reliable sources seems to be just regurgitations of press releases from their agency. Released one song that did not chart on any qualifying WP:CHART, then disbanded. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vrdi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was sourced to a combination of blogs, local news portals with no editorial oversight, and used inflammatory descriptions of the enemy while referring to HVO troops as "heroes". None of them are reliable, so I have deleted them. Without reliable sources, there is no way this article, supposedly about some fighting to defend/capture a village, meets the notability criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civilizations in Babylon 5

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AFD to receive wider input if this needs a stand-alone article. In 2020, this civilization article got smerged into List_of_Babylon_5_characters (as part of a larger B5 cleanup move) for WP:INUNIVERSE and general WP:FANCRUFT problems to avoid AFD (the irony!), see original merge proposal. The article got reestablished today, I would nowadays label it as an undue WP:Content fork without established notability. Should it exist and develop from here (assuming sources even exist), or officially redirect back to List_of_Babylon_5_characters until it qualifies for WP:SPINOUT? – sgeureka ^t•c 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge back to the character list. There's sourcing there to support a few sentences about each of the major species but this can be condensed to a short section with the character list article. Most of the content is far more appropriate at a fan wiki. Masem (t) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It already was trimmed & merged. Did I miss something by accident back in 2020? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  In itscurrent state, the article still heavily relies on in universe info that is unsourced or sourced to the primary work. I am certain that we can better summarize the major sle ies from the show with se ondary sources without excessive in universe detail, hence the trim and merge to keep appropriate content. If there is an article recreation problem, salting can be done on the redirect. Masem (t) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading back on the talkpages, it seems that the main reason for reestablishing this civ list lies with Shadow_(Babylon_5), which (understandably) isn't listed in the LoC and thus had no real target. However, 2019's Shadow_(Babylon_5) article doesn't look like it would survive AFD, so I feel that's either a non-issue or issue for WP:RFD. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sgeureka: So what is the central argument for deletion here? Is it notability? If so, was a WP:BEFORE search done? What were the results?

Or is the main argument a WP:PAGEDECIDE one for a likely notable topic?

The original merge is quite justified in my view, as there were no objections to the proposal then. But I do understand that the lack of treatment of the Shadows is one concern, because I know there are secondary sources talking about them, even though they are neither worked into this article nor the old stand-alone one. I don't have an opinion yet on the merge, but I am against deletion, as I don't see a reason not to at least have the redirect as WP:AtD. I think the old merge discussion should have been continued instead of starting a deletion discussion. Pinging @Anonymous44: as involved editor.

With regard to notability, one first secondary source which has significant treatment on our topic here would be the Babylon 5 chapter of The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader, which discusses the four main "younger races", Shadows and Vorlons. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I am not arguing for deletion, but I want to ideally make the redirect (a common AFD result per WP:COMMON#Fiction) "stick" officially without tedious back-and-forth discussions with fans. Or get my wrist slapped here in the process. If proper merge discussions can be undone willy-nilly without addressing the original article issues (tagged for 12 years before the merger!), the lesson here will be to do AFD from the outset in the future instead of the softer merge proposal route, which I used to be a fan of. Notability is not the main reason why we are at AFD, but the article sure should be build around establishing it (it currently isn't). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka: Thanks for clarifying! I understand that starting an AfD has a higher chance of getting more opinions and a closure on the question of a stand-alone article as compared to a merge discussion on the talk page. But I also think that there are good reasons the deletion policy explicitely says not to use this process if one wants or suspects merging as an outcome. E.g. as you have put forward this being a WP:Contentfork as a reason for the nomination, deletion policy says "Reasons for deletion include ... 5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)" (emphasis mine). Maybe to reduce frustration on the process in general I would like to point out that this is a bit of special case: Yes, you had started a merge discussion. Noone objected, so you were completely justified in going forward with the merge. But there were also no further opinions given, so one cannot speak of a consensus formed, which was "undone willy-nilly". Rather, we now have a second, opposing opinion, so at this point there is clearly a no consensus situation, and the provisional restoration of the list in my view is justified as well, based on the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (even though there was a time gap before refert here). I think "tedious back-and-forth discussions with fans", or rather, other Wikipedia editors, are the normal and reasonable, if inconvenient process at this point to reach an informed decision on the best course of action. It would be quite a different case if a solid consensus would have formed. Then there need to be good reasons and significant input to overthrow previous decisions, and there should be no "willy-nilly" "back-and-forth" about it. But this discussion needs to take place first. Now if the merge discussion would remain with only two opinions, which may happen at a talk page discussion even if is somewhat frustrating, I think there were to options: 50/50 opinion looks like no consensus, then things are left as they are for the time being. Or if you think you have the way better arguments, get a neutral third party to decide at Wikipedia:Closure requests, just as we have a neutral party closing a deletion discussion. We don't need the AfD process to achieve that. Daranios (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the thing... I have plenty of dead-tree resources on Babylon 5, but no time to do anything much except for stave off AfDs:
- Bassom, D., & Straczynski, J. M. (1997a). Creating Babylon 5: Behind the scenes of Warner Bros. revolutionary deep space TV drama (1st American ed). Ballantine Books.
- Bassom, D., & Straczynski, J. M. (1997b). The A-Z of Babylon 5: [The complete reference guide to the groundbreaking sci-fi series] created by J. Michael Straczynski. Dell Publishing.
- Guffey, E. F., & Koontz, K. D. (2017). A dream given form: The unofficial guide to the universe of Babylon 5. ECW Press.
- Johnson-Smith, J. (2005). American science fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and beyond. Wesleyan University Press.
- Lancaster, K. (2001). Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan performance in a media universe (1st ed). University of Texas Press.
- Lane, A. (1997). The Babylon file: The definitive unauthorized guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV series, Babylon 5. Virgin.
- Lane, A. (1999). The Babylon file: The definitive unauthorised guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV series Babylon 5. Vol. 2. Virgin.

There is absolutely enough in these books to support notability for an article on each episode of the series, as well as most things like the shadows as a civilization. How we deal with this is really dependent on how we, collectively, view WP:TIND, as I'd be lying if I said I thought I'd have time to work on this in the foreseeable future. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Later we decide if a separate article is necessary. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, echoing 21.Andromedae. With the secondary sources presented, the topic looks notable, and there would be enough material to solve the problems it has through normal editing, so deletion is not the way to go. I have no strong opinion if this is better kept as a stand-alone article or condensed as part of List of Babylon 5 characters for the time being. On the one hand it has been tagged for the problems for a long time, on the other I do think it would be better presented as a separate article in the long run. If it were to be covered in the characters list, some more should be added there. I can take a look at the Shadows in case this is kept. So like Jclemens, it depends on where we stand with regard to WP:TIND. I come out just on the keep side as an AfD outcome, not precluding further discussion on a merge on the talk page. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this could become notable even with sources existing. Perhaps a Universe of Babylon 5 article could be made, but that would require a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Notability in the Wikipedia sense is intrinsically based on treatment in secondary sources. So I don't quite get how this could become notable even with sources existing. Did you mean something else or would you like to explain in more detail? Daranios (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not satisfied. This appears to be a textbook indiscriminate list unless you can demonstrate sources discuss the civilizations of that universe as a whole, and separate from other discussion on the universe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: sources discuss the civilizations of that universe as a whole I believe the listed secondary sources do just that. separate from other discussion on the universe I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean that there needs to be material directly commenting on civilizations/species of Babylon 5, then I agree and again believe that the provided sources do that. If you mean that there need to be sources which only discuss the civilizations without (separate from?) referring to the fictional universe, that makes little sense to me. They are part of the universe. Both topics are connected. If there should be one article on the civilizations and the universe or two depends on the amount of material in secondary sources. I believe there is enough for two. If they are better presented together, at least until things get too large to read, or separate I have no strong opinion on. It is an editorial question, which is no reason for deletion. Fact is, we have a civilizations article but not a universe one. So if someone thinks things are better presented another way, they can do so, but first deleting everything is not the way to go according to policy. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as establishing notability goes, I'm not really sure that most of those sources listed above should qualify, as they appear to have been written specifically to talk about Babylon 5, versus discussing the series and elements of it within a broader context; two of them were even written in part by the creator of the series. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: I agree that the two publications by Bassom and Straczynski are non-independent and therefore probably don't contribute to notability. But as soon as they become "unofficial" guides, they should be independent. I've never heard that they appear to have been written specifically to talk about Babylon 5 would lead to them not "counting" towards notability. What would be the basis for that? Our most basic critereon of notability being "did people consider it relevant enought to publish about". Of course overall aside from notability an article needs to fullfill WP:NOTPLOT. American science fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and beyond and The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader do come from a broader context right away. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly thinking of the arguments discussed at WP:IPCV. We wouldn't expect a book specifically written about Babylon 5 not to discuss the civilizations that exist within the series, so does it really demonstrate any notability when such a book does so? Perhaps it depends on what the book has to say about the civilizations and whether there's meaningful discussion or just in-universe cruft, but I think it's a lot more compelling to use sources that weren't written with the express goal of discussing all matters B5-related. I agree with you that I don't readily see any issues with American science fiction TV, which isn't so directly B5-focused. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I'd think the opposite is true: If someone is willing to publish a whole book on a subject, that's surely significant coverage, as suggested in the example of WP:SIGCOV. But with regard to WP:IPCV we are in agreement that sufficient commentary rather than pure plot summary is necessary for a stand-alone article. As I said, I don't have doubts that enough can be found both within and without the listed sources. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge: I think it's possible that there may be something of value here, though I question whether truly independent sources (see my reply to Daranios above) have discussed the civilizations of B5 in any substantive detail. However, the listing in its current state would be more appropriate for a wikia or such, and I'm not sure how much of the current material would survive any real effort to provide sources that demonstrated real-world significance. I've also been on Wikipedia long enough to suspect that if the list is kept then we'll simply be revisiting this discussion in another few years when it hasn't been significantly improved. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It appears to be notable (per User:21.Andromedae), but it should be converted into a proper list. SirBrahms (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Amor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reviews in reliable sources already present in the article as determined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scars to Prove It

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Bastun has nominated nine Remedy Drive albums for deletion, all with the same non-descriptive rationale copy/pasted into each: "Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV." (The first nomination has slightly different syntax.) There is no evidence that a WP:BEFORE search, specific to each album, was done before this mass copy/paste operation. Some of the album articles have citations to reliable sources in the Christian music media, though others could be redirected to the band's article. That's already more variable evidence then given in these mass nominations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - not sure what you mean by "non-descriptive"? It's accurate. The albums have all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems good enough. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(I spread pro-Weezer propaganda)} 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is depressing. Vague nominations combatted by vague stances. Come on, do better. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a bit more on this one too. As I said on the nomination for Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Tight

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most definitely fails WP:GNG TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge text from Back to the Real. Caro7200 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes it notable though? Looking at the sources for the other page, half of the sources appear to be dead, one is just a wikipedia self citation, and one simply just confirms that the album exists. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Weak Keep, and use sources from the article for their lone album Back to the Real, which strangely is more developed than the band's article. Though I don't have access to the true chart pages at Billboard, their album made a small dent in the R&B charts and they had two mid-level hit singles. They got some minor coverage back in the day for being discovered by Warren G, as seen in a source used at the album article. This is reel close though, and I won't argue with anyone who votes differently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Chearavanont

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recently published from draftspace with the reason: She is notable, in my opinion. Searching her name in Thai, มาริษา เจียรวนนท์, provides plenty of coverage, which is significant enough to establish notability. Since I cannot re-draftify it per WP:DRAFTNO #6, I am bringing it to AfD. I believe that the article should be re-draftify-ed per WP:DRAFTREASON because "The article was created by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest, but it did not go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process". The tone is very promotional, notability appears to be marginal, and this is a BLP with several uncited paragraphs. The status quo should be restored so that this article can be cleaned up and notability established. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Thailand. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will vote later; note to admin: It seems this is a return of resentment from our previous conflict rather than a professional approach. ManoiCMU (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment recent editing seems to have removed some inline external links which might have, if properly formatted, served as references to support the article. eg this confirms that she won a 2022 Rinascimento Award, although not the statement that she was its first recipient as the source refers to the award being in its 3rd year. This may explain some of the unsourced paragraphs mentioned in the nomination. PamD 08:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is notable, but the article is still too blatantly promotional in tone (despite efforts at copyediting) to be suitable for Wikipedia. While AfD is not for clean up, the should not be allowed in its current state. Either trim it down to a bare stub from which it can be re-expanded, or draftify/delete without prejudice to a proper, neutrally written article. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Kunan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested BLAR. Fails WP:BIO1E per the consensus at the previous AfD. Very little has changed between the pre-AfD version and the current version of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and Thailand. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I've updated the article. The last AfD discussion was six years ago in 2018. At that time, his notability was unclear, but now he is being called a "national hero." His big statue has been erected in his town, and a memorial hall has been established—clear signs of his notability [10]. He was awarded the Knight Grand Cross (First Class) of the Order of the White Elephant by the King, which is not the third class that is typically given to minister-level individuals. The first class is rarely awarded and is reserved for individuals at the state level. So, he clearly passes WP:ANYBIO (and if disagree, WP:ANYBIO should be abolished.) The Order of the White Elephant is not a joke and the dream of many Thais; it's a prestigious honor similar to India's Padma Vibhushan. Some locals have venerated him as a deity or spirit. Moreover, he is the subject of a film, and in 2021, a TV drama titled Thirteen Lives was made (see coverage), in which he was portrayed by renowned actor Sukollawat Kanarot, and many significant, reliable sources have independently featured him. He easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, even if WP:ANYBIO isn’t considered. Here is the update article. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing ANYBIO does not automatically establish that a person is independently notable. It also doesn't override other notability guidelines, such as BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the update article. The New York Post is generally unreliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you are not happy with this, here is the original article [11] from Reuters, and extra from The Nation (Thailand). The NY Post is a mirror of the Reuters article. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, having a character in a TV drama about the notable event that this person is involved in does not establish notability of the person. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't cry....pls learn from many AfD outcomes. Other editors will decide his notability. Don't be serious. 55555. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portraying him as a figure in TV series is a sign of notability and a popular culture. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ManoiCMU, this is not how notability is established on Wikipedia. And deletion discussions are a serious business. We're deciding what is and isn't appropriate content for this encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...agree. I just a vote. Let others decide. ManoiCMU (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Morevoer... In July 2019, the Airports of Thailand (AOT) established a large building named the Lt. Cdr. Saman Kunan Building in his honor. A 1.9-meter-wide by 2-meter-long bas-relief sculpture, standing 2 centimeters high, was installed in the building as a tribute [12], [13]. A merit-making ceremony was held four years after his passing. The source described it as being "to commemorate his sacrifice, bravery, and dedication, as well as his example of doing good with a volunteer heart." The event was organized by Air Vice Marshal Chananan Rodkul, Director of the Security Division, with all staff from the Royal Thai Army Security Division also joining in tribute, see. In 2023, he was honored as "the national hero turned legend" (source: "Looking Back 5 Years: 'Tham Luang Cave Rescue Mission' - A Hero in Our Memory"). This recognition establishes his status as a national figure. He is more than WP:BIO1E on Wikipedia. ManoiCMU (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only on the many research pages of Google Scholar results for the English version of the article subject that you start to find academic papers without the Thai in the title. Almost all of them seem accessible to me (here are some good research articles: Eight Hanuman, heroes, and Buddhist masculinity in contemporary Thailand, “The Heroes”: A Visual Narration of The Rescue), indicating there is a wealth of in-depth research available. Here is good one in Thai: จ่า แซม: การ สื่อสาร ความ ทรง จำ ร่วม ใน สื่อ อิเล็กทรอนิกส์ "Sergeant Sam: Communicating Shared Memories on Electronic Media". He has several lengthy articles in various books Buddhist Masculinities, Stories for Boys Who Dare to be Different and many more. He was also in TIME Annual 2018. ManoiCMU (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was asked by ManoiCMU at the article talk page to weigh in, but I don't really have an opinion on this. The subject is notable, but the question is whether said notability is independent enough to warrant a stand-alone article, which is a matter of editorial judgment. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TECO Electric and Machinery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. I made an effort to find references and could only find primary sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting this article. I have just updated the "External links" section. This is a Taiwan company doing business worldwide, so as the descriptions are detailed in its Chinese page, its Enlish page is brief. It must, however, is needed in English for people in other countries. In Wikipedia, don't be a "deletioniist", but be an "encourager" to let other people to participate in update, in order to make a "weak" article a better article. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshi Canopus, there are no sources for this article; the company's website cannot show notability. Do you have links to any sources that demonstrate this company is notable by Wikipedia standards? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all I can find in a BEFORE is ordinary business activities. The article is completely unsourced and there is no sign of notability that I can find. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sun, Yun-suan (2006). 臺灣奇蹟推手: 孫運璿先生管理講座紀念文集 [Promoter of Taiwan's Miracle: A Collection of Commemorative Essays of Mr. Sun Yun-Chuang's Management Lectures] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press [zh]. pp. 188–193. ISBN 978-986-00-7834-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book covers the company on six pages. The book notes: "在集團轉投資方面,東元近年來更展現了旺盛的企圖心,除了電子、電機、通訊之外,東元投資領域已經橫跨半導體、光電以及其他相關的關鍵零組件、通訊固網、網路軟件、流通餐飲等行業。在多年經營下,東元電機已由原來的重電、家電領域邁向全球化的高科技企業,從製造、行銷等多面向發展,建立起縱橫世界的國際品牌——TECO。"
  From Google Translate: "In terms of group reinvestment, TECO has shown strong ambition in recent years. In addition to electronics, motors, and communications, TECO’s investment areas have spanned semiconductors, optoelectronics, and other related key components, communications fixed lines, and networks. Road software, distribution catering and other industries. After years of operation, TECO has moved from its original heavy electrical and home appliance fields to a global high-tech enterprise, developing from manufacturing, marketing and other aspects, and established TECO, an international brand that spans the world."
2. Shelton, Paul (2024-05-07). "Taiwan's TECO Electric and Machinery faces proxy battle. Shareholder group demands change of management and core business focus". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "Taiwanese electronics conglomerate TECO Electric and Machinery Co. (TECO) is in the middle of a proxy battle ahead of its upcoming annual general meeting on May 24. Eugene Huang (黃育仁), the grandson of TECO founder Lin Ho-yin (林和引), has released his vision for the company’s future with the launch of the FutureTECO campaign. Huang, whose father Theodore Huang was chair for many years but resigned from his board seat in 2021, has asked shareholders to support his eight nominees for TECO’s board at the upcoming general meeting. ... Founded in 1956 as an industrial motor manufacturer, TECO has evolved into a major business group, spanning heavy electric equipment, home appliances, information technology, communications, electronic components and parts, infrastructural engineering, financial investment, dining, and services."
3. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2021-07-23). Wu, Ting-yun 吳廷勻; Wang, Li-hua 王儷華 (eds.). "東元之爭》父子惡鬥、家事變公事　15萬股民權益在哪裡？" [TECO Battle》Father and son fight fiercely, family affairs turn into business affairs. Where are the rights of 150,000 shareholders?]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-12. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "東元集團黃茂雄、黃育仁父子經營權之爭，因為疫情進入2個月的延長賽，終於畫下暫時的逗點。"
  From Google Translate: "The dispute between the father and son of TECO Group Huang Maoxiong and Huang Yuren for management rights has finally come to a temporary end after entering a two-month extension due to the epidemic."
  The article notes: "這是一門代價不小的家族傳承及公司治理課。東元股東會投票結果，只是另一個開始。兩方公開收購戰還在進行，未來，東元電機必須更努力證明，自己仍是連續7年公司治理評鑑前5％的模範生。"
  From Google Translate: "This is a costly lesson in family inheritance and corporate governance. The voting result of TECO's shareholders' meeting is just another beginning. The public takeover battle between the two parties is still ongoing. In the future, TECO Electric must work harder to prove that it is still a model student in the top 5% of corporate governance evaluations for seven consecutive years."
4. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2024-09-11). Hong, Jia-ning 洪家寧 (ed.). "銀行教父如何改造傳產老店？專訪東元新董事長利明献「我來危機管理」". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "去年是東元業績最好的一年，去年毛利率創下七年新高，營收和EPS也刷新史上紀錄，財務健全、負債比率低，無庸置疑是一家營運穩健的公司。但過去這幾年，也是東元經營權紛爭最多的時期，父子反目的戲碼比八點檔還好看，吸住全民的注意力。現在經營權之爭已休戰，東元由華新麗華焦家、寶佳兩大股東共治的局勢落定，利明献認為，中長期來看，過去紛擾必定對品牌以及軍心有所影響，東元現在急需一個能扭轉態勢的掌舵者。"
  From Google Translate: "Last year was TECO's best performance year. Last year's gross profit margin hit a seven-year high, and revenue and EPS also set new historical records. With sound finances and a low debt ratio, there is no doubt that it is a company with stable operations. But the past few years have also been the period of most disputes over TECO's management rights. The drama about father and son's rebellion is even better than the 8 o'clock show, attracting the attention of the whole people. Now that the dispute over management rights has come to an end, TECO is now governed by the two major shareholders, Walsin Lihua Jiao Family and Baojia. Lee Ming-hsien believes that in the medium to long term, the past turmoil will definitely have an impact on the brand and military morale. TECO There is an urgent need for a leader who can turn the situation around."
5. Zhang, Rui-yi 張瑞益 (2023-05-03). "東元永續績效國際肯定榮獲MSCI AA評級列全球同業前15% 生產據點全都通過ISO 14000環保認證" [TECO's sustainable performance is recognised internationally Won the MSCI AA rating and ranked among the top 15% of global peers. All production sites have passed ISO 14000 environmental certification.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "東元電機是國內推動ESG相當積極且有成的企業，根據國際知名評比MSCI（Morgan Stanley Capital International）ESG Rating最新發布的2023年4月評比報告，東元再進一級，由A級升等為AA級，永續發展績效評比成績為全球同業中的前15%。MSCI在報告中指出，東元董事會運作良善，董事獨立性符合投資人期待；而東元全球的生產據點皆通過ISO 14000環保認證，為業界翹楚。"
  From Google Translate: "TECO Electric is a very active and successful company in promoting ESG in China. According to the latest April 2023 rating report released by the internationally renowned MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) ESG Rating, TECO has moved up a level and been upgraded from Grade A. It is rated AA and ranks in the top 15% of its global peers in terms of sustainable development performance. MSCI pointed out in the report that TECO's board of directors operates well and the director's independence meets investors' expectations; TECO's global production sites have all passed ISO 14000 environmental certification and are among the best in the industry."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TECO Electric and Machinery (traditional Chinese: 東元電機; simplified Chinese: 东元电机) to pass [Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria]], which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Armstrong

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thanks for pointing it out in this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Austudy Five has just been Prodded. I found a cite that Mick Armstrong was one of the 5 in a few seconds, a better cite would still be valuable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPath^talk 04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Subject to another deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Mick Armstrong) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Poolu (TV series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. The references on the page are 1) about the book and 2) don't even mention the show (FAKEREF?). A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any significant coverage. Note there is a movie under the same name for those doing a search prior to voting. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Gemini_TV#Current_broadcasts -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 sources on the page that are about the author and her book and nothing on the series that the page is on. Fails WP:SIGCOV about the series in sources and no reviews by critics with reliable sources on the page. RangersRus (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nambiar Builders

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP Polygnotus (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The subject of this article meets the **General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG)** and **Notability for Companies (WP:NCORP)** based on multiple independent, reliable sources. The following references provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions:
1. [It’s raining deals at the Great Times Property Festival](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/its-raining-deals-at-the-great-times-property-festival/articleshow/74076948.cms) – The Times of India

2. [Enphase India and U-Solar install rooftop PV plants in Bengaluru](https://www.energetica-india.net/news/enphase-india-and-u-solar-install-rooftop-pv-plants-in-bengaluru) – Energetica India

3. [Koramangala-based web start-up HomeBuy360 hits home run in real estate](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/south/koramangala-based-web-start-up-homebuy360-com-hits-home-run-in-real-estate/articleshow/13642201.cms?from=mdr) – The Economic Times

4. [Six reasons why you should watch 'Khasaakinte Itihaasam' play in Bengaluru](https://www.thenewsminute.com/features/six-reasons-why-you-should-watch-khasaakinte-itihaasam-play-bengaluru-42360) – The News Minute

5. [Enphase looks to tap 10% of rooftop market in next 2 years](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/enphase-looks-to-tap-10-of-rooftop-market-in-next-2-years/articleshow/89906198.cms?from=mdr) – The Economic Times

These sources demonstrate significant independent coverage, meeting the requirements of **WP:GNG** by showing that the subject has received attention from reputable publications. Additionally, since the article is about a business, it aligns with **WP:NCORP** by having multiple third-party sources, not limited to press releases or company announcements.
I believe the article merits retention based on these references and respectfully request that it not be deleted. Sanyam (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted the above reply a bit to make further discussion easier. Skynxnex (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep The content appears to be detailed and written in a neutral tone, aligning with Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and verifiability. The article provides substantial information relevant to the topic, and there is no indication of promotional bias. Additionally, the references cited seem appropriate and support the article’s claims. Therefore, I believe the article should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Polygnotus (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The article should be retained as it has received link in from prominent celebrities such as K S Chithra,Sharreth and K K Nishad.Relation to such well-known public figures demonstrate the subject’s notability and relevance. These acknowledgments also contribute to the subject's significance and public interest, aligning with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. --Divyajain85 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) — Divyajain85 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: !Vote by indefblocked sock struck. BD2412 T 01:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. The closer should note that the keep voters in the discussion so far (Sanyam, 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7, and Divyajain85) all appear to be SPAs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep It appears that editors Hemiauchenia and Polygnotus are primarily focused on my (Sanyam's) involvement rather than the content and significance of the page in question. I strongly disagree with their assessment regarding the article's failure to meet the criteria outlined in "WP:NCORP." The page clearly includes all important parameters such as reliable media sources and relevant linkages with notable individuals. Additionally, it is essential to recognize that multiple identities have been created online under the same name, highlighting the necessity for Wikipedia as a critical validation tool to differentiate between fake and legitimate representations.--Sanyam Jain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: !Vote by sockmaster also struck. BD2412 T 01:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Analysis of sources proves that the page is for WP:PROMO. Poor sources on the page that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter and it does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both The Economic Times and The News Minute are references that can be relied upon. Additionally, there are other sources that show notability. There are a variety of other references that indicate this passes WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udtatika (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC) (This user also appears to be a SPA, see their contribs [14]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: !Vote by additional sock also struck. BD2412 T 01:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP: GNG AfD nominator seems to be unfamiliar with WP: BEFORE, so follow the sources mentioned above. Sending a new article to AfD is not the best way to go. Meraara (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) — Meraara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: !Vote by additional sock also struck. BD2412 T 01:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:GNG/ WP:SIRS.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.indywoodexcellenceawards.com/builtinindia-awards		?	Listing	✘ No
https://www.brickworkratings.com/		?	Homepage link	✘ No
https://www.icra.in/Rationale/ShowRationaleReport?Id=91186	?	?	PDF Listing	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/its-raining-deals-at-the-great-times-property-festival/articleshow/74076948.cms		~	Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.energetica-india.net/news/enphase-india-and-u-solar-install-rooftop-pv-plants-in-bengaluru	Interview / Press release	?		✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/south/koramangala-based-web-start-up-homebuy360-com-hits-home-run-in-real-estate/articleshow/13642201.cms?from=mdr			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.thenewsminute.com/features/six-reasons-why-you-should-watch-khasaakinte-itihaasam-play-bengaluru-42360		?	Trivial mention	✘ 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}}.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Delete. Source analysis above is persuasive. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the source analysis, there is a real lack of significant coverage on the page (all or almost all are just passing mentions) JMWt (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

232d Medical Battalion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search got mostly press releases. A subject specific notability guideline doesn't exist for military units/formations, and the article seems to not fulfill our general notability guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT. But move to 232nd Medical Battalion per norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error message comes up on this AFD, as well "Do not use {{Draft article}} in mainspace". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, — Maile ,

I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 Hate to say this, but I'm not seeing any error messages, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sourcing on the subject is the unit talking about itself. That is neither secondary nor independent. MILUNIT is not a notability guideline and so per WP:N has zero sway here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have expanded it a bit and added some sources as part of #NOV24 backlog drive. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess TheBirdsShedTears' updates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the added refs mentioned above do not appear to be independent. So I'm not sure those really count towards notability. I agree with the above that military units often are notable, but I'm not sure we can really !keep unless there is independent coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Espinar bus crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sustained coverage in secondary sources and had no lasting effects. This is a news article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 41 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – There appears to be some continued coverage that may demonstrate the event's notability,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] however, the fact that some do not provide significant coverage of the event plus the lack of demonstrable lasting effects all make me lean towards a weak delete. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Mal estado de vía sería causa de accidente" [Poor road conditions could cause an accident]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 29 December 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "Internan en penal de Chumbivilcas a chofer que causó 42 muertes al volcar bus" [Driver who caused 42 deaths when bus overturned is held in Chumbivilcas prison]. Agencia Peruana de Noticias (in Spanish). 13 May 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "La tragedia que enlutó la Navidad" [The tragedy that darkened Christmas]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 25 December 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "Ni empresa de transporte, ni aseguradora reparan a vï¿½ctimas de accidente | La fuga de Guapo Lindo" [Neither the transport company nor the insurance company compensates accident victims | The escape of Guapo Lindo]. El Búho (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 October 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kent

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Sole acceptable source is from BBC Scotland Business news reporting on his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association. Not sufficient to demonstrate notability as a "mention in passing (example given at BASIC is "John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University")" AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets. Only about 30-40 awarded every year in a country of 67 million people. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As we established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Shearman, honours, which are routine for British ambassadors to receive from their employer, do not eliminate the requirements for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We established no such thing. Only a minority of diplomats or even ambassadors have high honours such as the CMG. You made a patently false claim by citing only very senior ambassadors who do have such honours and the AfD was closed before I could answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not false. A very large number of British ambassadors have received honours from their employer, many with fairly unremarkable careers. That doesn't override BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Who are you to state they've had unremarkable careers? A high honour would suggest otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only instance of IDONTLIKEIT is your approach to the requirement for significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. AusLondonder (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC after adding references which were trivial to find: WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. Jonathan A Jones (talk)

The two most recent sources you've added are primary. I actually did see the government sources before nominating but I know that per BASIC "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing some routine announcements about his appointments, but nothing independent, secondary, and significant. And content following "According to the official biography" is obviously not independent or secondary. Receiving an award also doesn't mean the subject is exempt from notability requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass BASIC, see e.g. Buenos Aires Times (158 words), Nation Thailand (327 words), MercoPress (176 words), VietnamPlus (about some sort of award he received from the Vietnam government, 100 words), Press and Journal (287 words), Bangkok Post (1000+ words w/quotes), etc. Also, if everyone failing ANYBIO but meeting BASIC gets an article, and everyone meeting ANYBIO has to pass BASIC to get an article, that effectively means that ANYBIO is 100% wholly worthless. Or maybe, just maybe, there is a purpose in having such criteria, such as that categories of people winning major awards should be complete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A point I've made many times. If ANYBIO is routinely ignored then what on earth is the point of it? The point of it is to catch people who have had careers in unglamorous occupations but who have received high honours from their country, in recognition that, glamorous or not, they have made a significant contribution to the world. Wikipedia is not a reality TV talent contest, but a serious encyclopaedia that should cover such people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except WP:ANYBIO explicitly, unambiguously states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It does not in any sense override BASIC requirements. It's a guide that indicates a likelihood of notability, not a free pass. If you want that to change, feel free to propose it instead of bringing up reality television at every AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources identified, I can't see them contributing to notability. Interviews are primary sources. A brief mention of his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association is not an acceptable source as I pointed out in the nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing all of those sources, especially the Bangkok Post 1,300-word feature on 'The workaholic ambassador', which contains over 700 words on Kent that is not quotes, is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware what it says. I'm pointing out that if it's sneered at whenever it's mentioned then it's utterly pointless, which suggests it's intended to be taken into consideration. What do you think it's there for precisely? Don't actually think I've mentioned reality television before! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to meet WP:BASIC, per others. Sir MemeGod  15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguni (district)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NPLACE. Noah ^💬 00:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the subject not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria or NPLACE and in addition NPLACE does not supersede GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. This seems like an incredibly arbitrary AfD, there are hundreds of thousands of places that fail GNG but are included on Wikipedia because they pass NPLACE. Noah ^💬 02:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Again NPLACE does not supersede GNG and to pass either one they sources of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources (IRS) need to be provided for verification.. Articles about places that fails GNG and is in the main space is because no one/editor yet to AfD the articles and it is NOT because they are in main space means they pass GNG. Thousand of article that fail GNG or SNG are in Wikipedia and they always CAN be AfD if anyone nominate them in regardless how long the articles in main space Wikipedia. There might be other languages have IRS about the place which I dont know know those languages, but if anyone can find them then add them in the article and let me know.05:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Dušica Bijelić

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is cited almost entirely to non-independent sources; mainly to theaters employing the subject. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all insignificant comprimario parts. We need to see better more significant roles, and those roles covered in independent sources, to pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Mal estado de vía sería causa de accidente" [Poor road conditions could cause an accident]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 29 December 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[2] "Internan en penal de Chumbivilcas a chofer que causó 42 muertes al volcar bus" [Driver who caused 42 deaths when bus overturned is held in Chumbivilcas prison]. Agencia Peruana de Noticias (in Spanish). 13 May 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[3] "La tragedia que enlutó la Navidad" [The tragedy that darkened Christmas]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 25 December 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[4] "Ni empresa de transporte, ni aseguradora reparan a vï¿½ctimas de accidente | La fuga de Guapo Lindo" [Neither the transport company nor the insurance company compensates accident victims | The escape of Guapo Lindo]. El Búho (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]