Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 November 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

< November 06	November 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Sultan Mansor Shah

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SMK Sultan Mansor Shah (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Previous nomination WP:Articles for deletion/Sultan Mansor Shah Secondary School was outdated for the later WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES on the February 2017 RFC. WP:R made in [1] by Alexander Iskandar and [2] by Hongqilim which were reverted should be a proper move. My first AfD nomination, hehe. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Puget Sound

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

Hyper-local trade organization of small sphere of influence. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't find sources suggesting WP:NORG is met, in particular WP:AUD. A lot of local regions have local trade organizations. This doesn't particularly stand out as notable and is not significant enough of a global enyclopedia. After analyzing contribution history and seeing phrasing like "Members can also request to be emailed audition announcements automatically as they become available.", public relations editing intended to inflate importance and notability is involved. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Entertainment, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No plausible redirect target. I found tons of listings and brief mentions, but the only independent significant coverage was a single Seattle Times article.[3] Not sufficient to meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khosi Twala

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

Reality television participant of Big Brother Titans who does not appear to have received coverage outside of the show. Appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:ENT at this point of time. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and South Africa. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother Titans: Per nom. The description states that she's a TV personality, entrepreneur, journalist, model and influencer. However, there's no reference to back that statement. Big Brother is not even a talent show. This was just 15 minutes of fame. dxneo (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alas Agnes

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

Article about a song, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NSONGS. As always, songs are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability bar for songs requires evidence of their cultural significance (charting, awards, sufficient coverage and analysis about the song in reliable sources to get it over WP:GNG, etc.) -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and the article is completely unreferenced for the purposes of establishing that it would pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

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

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: standard list of programmes by network,: can be trimmed, but at least please see Category:MeTV_original_programming. 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) 11:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: previous recent AfDs for similar lists have resulted in deletion or redirection: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by HTV (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pogo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Colors Kannada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Green Entertainment Fram (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I participated in at least one of the ones you linked (and a relist would not have hurt in that particular case) and I would obviously have !voted Keep at the other ones if I had been aware of the discussions.

But those 6 AfDs -FXIW: One was in 2009- do not invalidate the arguments above and 1) the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept/unchallenged pages is a hint that 2) should anyone take further actions to delete similar pages a more general discussion would perhaps be useful. At the very very very least Redirects would indeed seem to be an obvious ATD in each and every case except when he network has no page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, didn't mean to include that 2009 one, wanted to list to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vinh Long TV (THVL). I'll leave it in the list, but it of course is no evidence of any recent AfD trend on the matter. But on the other hand I see no evidence for "the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept" articles (unchallenged ones are just that, nothing more or less). For channels with little or no original programming (something like the above AfDs or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pop (UK & Ireland)), the result is nearly always delete / redirect. The keeps are usually for major channels with lots of original programming, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by ITV, and I wouldn't argue for deletion of such ones. Fram (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Illinois. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely acquired programming with next to no original content. Also inadequately sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I might be missing something here, but where does it say originals has notability, but reruns don't? The owner of this channel Weigel Broadcasting has better viewership than Hallmark, A&E networks or AMC that do have original programming. https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/the-gauge/#viewing-by-distributor

One thing I do say about this list article, it does need some cleanup. However, deletion doesn't sound correct. Rivertown (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every television channel that exist doesn't get to list every single program they show. These are shows someone else created for different channels. Only one original program, so no need for a list for just that. Dream Focus 15:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As someone mentioned above, where does it say a list qualifies as notable when it only lists original programs specifically? I can see the concern over a list, especially not referenced. I did not create this list, just moved it out of the main article, which was becoming too long with this list included. The lists such as List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV and others have been on Wikipedia for over a decade with no issues at this point. Just mentioning....
Msw1002 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This channel has already proven to be very popular for its iconic selection of toons. I think it totally deserves to have an extension with a list of programs page. Voicebox64 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Viewers should know what airs on the channel. 12.28.52.122 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the average Joe is going to look at what programs are broadcasted on the channel on Wikipedia. Procyon117 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The channel's programming is better summarized in a paragraph in the main article about programming than yet another adverty WP:NOTTVGUIDE violation. Nate • (chatter) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hopefully, you will start or support a deletion of List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV as well. This is the same type of list with this kind of violation. :)
Msw1002 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable sources and no reason why it should be a separate article. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The channel, like most diginets, has little to no original programming. A reasonable summary of channel programming and more detail of any original programming can be provided in the parent article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last comment (I promise!), because this list is headed for deletion. Why are other similar list articles not up for deletion? No one seems to want to mention or address that. 🤔🤫🫣Msw1002 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This channel largely exists to show reruns of older television shows. Wikipedia should not serve as a guide for what one can watch on random television channels. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to show any original content. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --wooden superman 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, they do, see above; but even if that was not the case, a list of programs may be considered notable even if not (completely) original ( =coverage on the topic as a set includes https://www.animationmagazine.net/2024/05/metv-toons-unveils-debut-programming-schedule/ https://www.fastcompany.com/91152142/metv-toons-max-cartoons-looney-tunes https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/metv-toons-network-launch-weigel-broadcasting-warner-bros-discovery-1235988916/ https://www.pennlive.com/entertainment/2024/06/metv-officially-launches-new-cartoon-channel-on-your-dial.html; and other guidelines may apply anyway) Mushy Yank (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be trimmed to original content only. --wooden superman 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating my comment to you, since you are the only one who responds to others.🙂Here is my note from above:

Why are other similar list articles not up for deletion? No one seems to want to mention or address that. 🤔🤫🫣Msw1002 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should be. WP:OTHERSTUFF. --wooden superman 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Msw1002, if other articles should be considered for deletion, then feel free to put a nomination argument together for them. WP:FIXIT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see many P&G-based views here. The WP:TV essay says nothing about notability hinging on the originality of the programming, and adherence to GNG wasn't addressed here even once. We also tend to discard WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type votes, exemplified here with the retributive, "Keep or delete other articles". As always, a critical source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Reliable sources such as ABC News and Variety Magazine covered MeTV's programming when they launched, so it barely passes WP:NLIST.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Vance

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

No WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Most articles other than this one are just a passing mention. Other results are just tennis databases etc. Barely meets WP:NTENNIS (was an alternate at 2022 Delray Beach Open and 2022 Sofia Open) but fails WP:SIGCOV. RachelTensions (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennis. RachelTensions (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kefas Brand

AfDs for this article:

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

Can’t find many in depth sources online, I believe he fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Businesspeople, and Uganda. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dustclouds

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

Not notable. No reliable sources found. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 10:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 10:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find it on MUBI and one or two user-generated movie websites but that's it; not so much as a single review and no SIGCOV. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per this it looks like this and the accompanying film Sandcastles were both student films. That would explain the general lack of info about the movies. Even with the biggest hitters, student films typically don't gain a ton of coverage. I'll still look, but offhand this looks like it could be covered in the director's article in a few sentences. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which would mean that a redirect is acceptable, maybe, then.Mushy Yank (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. It ended up being a quick search. Any mention I found about this was in passing and were typically "Filip Jan Rymsza (Dustclouds, Sandcastles) is directing this new movie". As mentioned above, this is kind of part and parcel for student films. It's extremely rare that a student film will gain coverage, regardless of the notability of the director. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to redirect. I think a redirect is a fine idea here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Filip_Jan_Rymsza#Filmography: listed there, and add the note from the Chicago Reader; this is a standard ATD. Mushy Yank (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC) (technically adding to the page about the director, the fact that the film and his first effort are described as "visually dense experimental collage films steeped in references to literature and painting" (from the source, implies a merge, so consider I !vote R&M, please)[reply]
Redirect: as suggested in the comment above mine seems fine. Student films aren't notable without a ton of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kerh (1516)

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

Challenged draftification. I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The subject currently fails to meet WP:GNG. Please ping me if you can find sources. A rewrite may also be needed per WP:NPOV. GrabUp - Talk 09:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 09:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ridouani

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

Fails to meet WP:NPOL; being a mayor does not inherently make a person notable, and the cited sources lack SIGCOV, with some being unreliable. It also fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and Politicians. GrabUp - Talk 09:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DSU Fight Song

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

The article clearly violates WP:NOTLYRICS. The song itself fails WP:NSONG as I cannot find any reliable source talking about it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Dakota. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also searched and couldn't find independent reliable sources discussing this song. Left guide (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the nominator and previous voter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTLYRICS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshan Singh Bajwa

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

The article fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The sources primarily focus on the subject's demise, which does not justify the existence of an independent Wikipedia article. I recommend a speedy deletion, as the article has little to no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, India, and Haryana. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to hold the third highest police rank and served as a director of a cabinet secretarial, which both seem to be about mid-level civil service positions. This doesn't strike me as meeting notability. Appears to be in senior management, which isn't usually high enough to meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroto Arai

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

Played briefly in Japan’s third league. Nothing usable in ja:wiki, the longest source mentions Arai in half a sentence. Therefore no sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Creator (Simione) is active in AFD, what do you think? Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sho Kamimura

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

Rightfully prodded by User:Piotrus in 2023. Played very briefly in Japan’s second league, India’s second league and in Singapore. Nothing usable in ja:wiki, no sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, Singapore, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One or two goals isn't the stuff of notability, playing in the third league is very likely non-notable. The lack of sourcing in both the Ja and En wiki articles are also indicative of non-notability. I can't find any sourcing about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Chidozie Ogbonna

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

There is, as a matter of fact, no source to establish claims of significance or notability for the subject of this article. Sources are either primary, are closely related to the subject or are the subject's own opinion. From cursory search, nothing especially different and useful was found. Here lies my concern of critical undisclose paid editing from the author of this article or a close relation at best. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I understand your concerns regarding notability and potential conflict of interest. I'll provide additional, independent sources to establish the subject's significance. I declare no conflict of interest or paid editing affiliation with the subject. I'll revise the article to enhance quality and neutrality. Please offer guidance on improving the article.

Thank you very much for the review. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 15:28, 31 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!} 07:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG, coverage/sourcing is scant and directly influenced - "Chief Aloysius Chidozie Ogbonna in an inspiring chapter in his remarkable journey, has ascended the revered throne of Ìgwè of the Ogugu." The Igwe of a six-village community fails WP:NPOL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Subject is potentially notable - coverage exists, but the article is improperly referenced and (while I've removed the worst of it) still promotional. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been sent to draft and banged back into mainspace. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another non-notable "entrepreneur" from Nigeria. President of the student union isn't notable, the rest sound like a chamber of commerce-type organization. These biographical articles of entrepreneurs all start to sound the same, after reviewing enough of them, which isn't helping notablity. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KidzSearch

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

Fails WP:INHERENTWEB. Almost all references are the website being described. No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage. The website hasn't attracted notice. It has received very little attention from independent sources. Mlody1312 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlody1312 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 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!} 07:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - majority of sources are primary or not reliable. Encoded Talk 💬 20:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Agreed this subject has had little or no lasting impact. Searching for references to it via Google, there are few results and mostly just a paragraph in articles listing kid-safe search engines. Rather than delete outright, maybe redirect to Internet filter. I think there could be scope for a generic article on safe search, distinct from SafeSearch which is about the feature built into Google Search. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note - This AFD was not linked from the KidzSearch page properly as the AFD nomination template used Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidzSearch. I corrected that today. Given that all relevant comments at the invalid AFD are posted here, this issue should not require any extension to this AFD beyond the usual criteria for relisting. -- Whpq (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. Curb Safe Charmer, are you arguing for a Redirect to Internet filter or did you have another target article in mind? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind redirecting to Internet filter for the time being, until such time as someone writes an article on safe search generally, when the redirect could be updated. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet filter as an ATD. Agree on lack of impact/coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet filter: as WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy of Ceylon (1948–1972)

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

WP:CONTENTFORK. A previous RfC at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate found that this topic is the same as Dominion of Ceylon. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sri Lanka. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article is about the institution of the monarchy, not the dominion or the country. Not to mention that almost all realms, former and current, have their respective monarchy/queen pages. As sourced in the article, British monarchs were acclaimed monarchs of Ceylon as successors of sovereigns of the ancient Sinhalese kingdom. Native monarchs are covered at Sinhalese monarchy. The discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon reflected that the term "Monarchy of Ceylon" may also refer to pre-colonial monarchs of Ceylon, and hence parenthetical disambiguation is used for Monarchy of Ceylon (1948–1972), similar to the situation at Monarchy of Nigeria (1960–1963). Peter Ormond 💬 07:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The RFC was in 2015 and consisted of one nomination and one agree vote. It's hardly a landslide. The content in this new article, Monarchy of Ceylon, (BTW, a very well researched, structured and written article IMHO) is substantively different to that in Dominion of Ceylon AFAICS. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Haiti boat fire

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, no continued coverage, all coverage dates to the week (mostly just the day, it fell off incredibly fast) this happened, fails WP:LASTING extremely and the coverage is not analytical or in depth enough to compensate. A lot of tragic things happen in Haiti. Most do not get continued coverage. Death toll is not notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Haiti. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails the WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE clauses of WP:NEVENT. Left guide (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This will be picked up in academic publications. WP:NTEMP WP:NOTTEMPORARY don't require articles to be taken down while one waits for the expected to happen - that this features in peer-reviewed publications - and the article clearly meets GNG in all categories, except WP:LASTING, where it is disputed. "Death toll is not notability" -- well, absolutely massive coverage is notability, which is what this event received.

Thudinspecies (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it will? I edit in this field constantly, you tend to get a feel for what will and won't, and in some countries they just never do. I really doubt this will sustain lasting coverage, considering how quickly it dropped off the news. There are too many incredibly high death toll tragedies in Haiti. Much less an academic publication. I have read about terrorist attacks that killed 100 people that did not sustain lasting coverage (for clarity, not in Haiti, but in another country that has constant high death toll incidents)

It received an incredibly short burst of coverage, with no continuing impact, not "absolutely massive" by any means. That is not notability. This doesn't meet the GNG because all sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, so none actually count for notability when it comes to the GNG. A sign to wait would be if any of this coverage was analytical at all, but it isn't, it's just "thing happened" and then everyone moved on the next day because Haiti has massacres and tragedies with a regularity none of its neighbors do.

The article does not pass the GNG, as the GNG requires secondary sources, and every source here is primary. It also does not pass any bit of WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I defer to you. Thudinspecies (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_shipwrecks_in_2024#July as an WP:ATD-R. मल्ल (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of consensus building, this is fine to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fine with that redirect for the sake of consensus. Left guide (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, as ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Nahavandi

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

I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV, probably not enough here for WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 05:59, 24 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, Iran, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are well, I have added more references such as (Magazine, News and more refs) to make sure each statements are supported by mentioned references. Could you please let me know if this could help to not be nominated for deletion? any feadbacks or help in case if there are still some issue with this article would be appreciated, many thanks xx Lanak20 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to three sources that discuss him in detail? -KH-1 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here are the some sources that dicuss him in the details:

1 ) https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/

2) https://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/1933514 ( Moscow tonight / Party issue/ February vol2/ page 34,35,36,37 )

3) https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cm5er1zggp0o

some extra just in case:

4) https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/1652987/%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AE%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%88-%D9%BE%D8%B2-%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AE%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C

5)

https://roozaneh.net/art-culture/biography/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C/

Lanak20 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional profile, probably user submitted.
Can't access the full publication, unclear what coverage it provides of the subject
About a protest song, doesn't specifically mention the subject as far as I can tell English
What appears to be a film review, doesn't mention the subject as far as I can tell English
What appears to be a promotional bio of a different individual - English

Still not seeing anything that would demonstrate SIGCOV.-KH-1 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate your feadback however:

It is not a promotional website, there is not a part of website stating user can create a profile or bio. the National Diversity Awards website is not a promotional platform where individuals can create their own profiles. It is a curated, third-party site that publishes detailed nomination profiles for individuals recognized for their achievements. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies of living persons, such as WP (General Notability Guideline), accept third-party recognition and profiles published on award platforms as potential sources. This source provides coverage that is independent and detailed enough to establish some notability.
The February issue of Moscow Tonight, available on MagCloud, includes four dedicated pages about the subject. This source should meet WP guidelines, as it provides detailed coverage on the individual. The fact that the magazine is behind a paywall does not negate its validity as a source, especially since Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable sources regardless of paywalls (WP). To address your concern about access, I am happy to provide additional details if needed."
I understand there may have been a translation challenge here, as the article on BBC 'Persian' references the individual within the broader context of cultural movements. The piece mentions notable figures, including the subject, associated with influential trends in this movement. BBC Persian is a reputable source, and while the English translation may lack some nuance, the article reflects the subject’s role within a culturally significant narrative, which aligns with WP when viewed as part of their broader impact. I’m happy to clarify any specific details from the source in the original Persian to ensure accurate representation. This source, while not comprehensive on its own, does contribute valuable context alongside other supporting sources that I am preparing to further substantiate the article.
Mashregh News Article on a Protest Song (Bella Ciao and artists who sang) : While this article is not just a film review and may not solely focus on the subject, it is worth noting that WP allows for multiple sources that contribute to notability as a collective rather than needing to be individually comprehensive. This piece references the subject within a context that showcases their influence and relevance, particularly within cultural discussions, which contributes to notability even if indirectly.
Roozaneh.net Biography (Appears to Be a Different Individual): I understand the concern here. It seems this website might be confusing in English translation but i have added this as there is a connection to related page as in the article it was mention of music collaboration and some refers. I am willing to remove it from consideration and focus on sources directly pertinent to the subject. My apologies for any confusion here.

Lanak20 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to see more participation here besides the nominator and the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 31 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!} 06:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Singer, songwriter, actor, social media Influencer and product designer" - I mean, you really do have to make your mind up which you're going to be! However, subject fails WP:GNG across any/all of these. The links provided in addition to those in the article are singularly unconvincing. The scant namechecks or one-line mentions of the subject do not collectively convince me that we are anywhere near a pass of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on the article. I would like to address the concerns you raised, with reference to Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide clarity. Based on Wikipedia’s guidelines and standards, this article meets the criteria for inclusion and should not be deleted. Here are several key reasons:
1. Relevance of Multiple Roles: It’s not uncommon for Wikipedia to document individuals with multi-disciplinary careers, as this reflects the diverse nature of modern achievements. Figures such as Donald Glover and Jennifer Lopez are recognized for having multiple notable career paths. This bio reflects Ario Nahavandi’s notable roles across multiple fields, which aligns with Wikipedia's standards on verifiability and notability across multiple occupations.
2. General Notability Guideline (WP): The subject's notability is supported through the National Diversity Awards , which is a curated platform recognizing notable figures. The profile published on this platform isn’t self-authored but rather part of an established award process, lending credibility as a third-party endorsement. This source provides significant coverage of the individual’s achievements.
3. Reliability of Paywalled Sources: Wikipedia acknowledges that paywalled content is permissible, as stated in WP . The "Moscow Tonight" magazine article provides four pages dedicated to Ario Nahavandi, discussing his work and influence in detail. Although behind a paywall, this article offers depth and aligns with WP ’s requirement for significant coverage. Paywalls do not undermine a source’s validity, as Wikipedia emphasizes content reliability over accessibility.
4. Verification and Language Nuances: The Persian articles references Ario Nahavandi within the context of each lines that eas mentioned and also cultural movements, specifically his version of the protest song "Bella Ciao." This song has significant cultural relevance and is widely associated with advocacy and social justice, topics that Nahavandi’s work reportedly explores. This source establishes the subject's cultural impact and positions him within a movement. While it may not be the sole basis for notability, it provides valuable context and should be considered alongside other sources.
5. Indirect Contributions and WP : Wikipedia allows for cumulative notability, where references collectively demonstrate a subject’s influence and relevance. Although some sources provide indirect mentions, when considered together, they support the subject’s impact, especially within the Persian music scene and cultural discussions. WP does not demand each source to be exhaustive on its own; instead, they collectively establish the subject’s role within the field.
Lanak20 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass notability for musicians, I don't see any charted singles or awards... Source 15 is about a government minister speaking about another person/actress, I'm not sure what that has to do with this person. Source 2 is a promotional link, as is source 4. Source 24 is a spotify link... Nothing of substance to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Glamm Group

(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 and WP:ROUTINE. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. This AfD should be grouped with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyGlamm, as they both have similar promotional content. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 03:06, 31 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) 03:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this article should be deleted Hallowme (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the article meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG standards. Reliable sources (WP:RS) such as Forbes India, The Hindu Business Line, Inc42, and Fortune India, along with other available sources, are sufficient to establish notability. Any issues with promotional language can be resolved through further editing. Baqi:) (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The tone of the coverage presented is relentlessly promotional across the board ("Their mission is to make everyone look and feel their best, and they are well on their way to achieving that goal." Entrepreneur India) and the article definitely falls directly into WP:NOTCRUNCHBASE like a fieldmouse in a combine harvester. It's clear that Indian licenses of otherwise respected titles are presenting nowhere near the standard of objective journalism of their parents. Brandlabs by Inc42 is, for instance, a paid content play. Even the Forbes India coverage is wholly uncritical to an almost unreadable extent, while other coverage presented is clearly the result of paid promotion or company releases and interviews. But even when you take out the praise and purple prose, you're left with funding and IPO announcements - ~~there's nothing of substance to indicate any enduring impact.~~ There is, incidentally, nothing in the sources cited to stand up an involvement with the company by L'Occitane, which just added to my concerns. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per sources presented by @Chanel Dsouza below, Imma change my vote. I didn't find those, glad she did. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving it. I analysed the article's sources and I agree with Alexandermcnabb's assessment that the Entrepreneur India article has a promotional tone. However, not all the sources are of this nature. The article includes several that offer in-depth coverage. My search uncovered additional sources that provide critical analysis and substantial coverage of this group such as [4][5][6][7][8][9] so it passes NCORP and CORPDEPTH.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyGlamm

(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 and WP:ROUTINE. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator that this company lacks significant coverage. Pages of other companies or brands under this group–POPxo, MissMalini.com, The Moms Co and BabyChakra–have similar issues, with none of them appearing individually notable. I wouldn't oppose a collective merge of all five pages to Good Glamm Group. Yuvaank (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not very certain about the other pages discussed above, but this page could be kept, considering it is a unicorn startup and has been widely covered in the news. The page had been heavily edited by IPs adding promotional material, which I have made efforts to remove and neutralize the tone as much as possible. Though I defer to the consensus of other editors on this matter.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source cited on the page, it was MyGlamm's parent, Good Glamm Group, that became a unicorn. Yuvaank (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more opinions on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the parent fails WP:NCORP, the subsidiary certainly does. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balagarh High School

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace. It's poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV sources found. These college and school articles are everywhere and this also fail to meet WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 05:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect No notability per WP:GNG, we most definitely don't need the staff list. Possibly redirect to West Bengal Board of Secondary Education but that's not a clear target as there is no Hooghly district there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for target we need a source which I am unable to see. GrabUp - Talk 09:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources don't meet notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and staff list definitely not needed. Procyon117 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wits of the Brats

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

Not independently sourced. A WP:BEFORE search failed. I unilaterally moved this to draftspace once already. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As someone already mentioned, it meet the WP:NFILM since it was the first and the only Fu Sheng's directorial roles on films and among the last films he acted on before his death and I made this article initially as a tribute to him. If there's a problem with the plot then you can watch it by yourself on Dailymotion https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ibl4f if you can understand mandarin. There are other older hong kong films article with some dated as early as 2007 that were outrageously less sourced and arguably less notable than this article, and I don't see editor having problem with those article and I think now this article have enough proper source in the latest edit at the time of this reply.
Dauzlee (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was any problem with the plot. But thanks. Mushy Yank (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in general we don't use non-expert reviews to establish notability. So maybe a good part of the reviews you've added won't count, I'm afraid. Mushy Yank (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely unsourced, entirely unverifiable. Search just throws up Amazon Prime listings and the like. Draft was the right move, now this is the right move. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NFILM as the only director effort of Alexander Fu Sheng. A redirect (various targets come to mind: lists of films, directors, producers..) should have been considered anyway. So, absolutely opposed to deletion. Pinging @Prince of Erebor: to ask them if they can locate sources to add to the ones I've already added (various SPS expert reviews exist but I did not add them). Mushy Yank (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found several reviews and the film is referenced on many websites. It is particularly notable because of the directors involved. Once there is a Wikipedia page for it, even more people will realize that it exists and review it. Then even more reviews can be added. --Nicholas0 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry but you can only !vote once. Would you please unbold one of your 2 keeps, please? Thanks.~~Mushy Yank (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only voted once, though. Are you confusing me with someone else? Nicholas0 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologise! Silly me. Mushy Yank (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Hong Kong. Mushy Yank (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Strong Keep: This is a 1984 film, and the Chinese titles were all misspelled, which probably explains why an internet search yielded no results. I found two sources from Lianhe Wanbao[10][11], two from Shin Min Daily News[12][13], four from Kung Sheung Daily News[14][15][16][17], and one from Wah Kiu Yat Po[18], and have added all of them to the article (+significantly expanded it). GNG is clearly fulfilled at this point. @I dream of horses and Alexandermcnabb: Please review the newly located sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Film has coverage here, here and here and this is just from Singapore. There's definitely far more in offline sources from Hong Kong. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, these are tiny pieces - snippets - of coverage in local foreign language print media. If they're more than listings or passing mentions, it certainly doesn't seem so. I think this is really reaching - is the film truly notable by WP English standards? Internationally notable? From this, I'm still calling it 'no'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: I beg to differ with your source assessment. 1. Non-English sources are allowed on WP and contribute to notability in the same way as English sources. Please see WP:NONENG. 2. All the sources I added, except for source 14, are full-length articles entirely covering the film. I have actually come across at least 5 other articles with less significant coverage while searching for sources, and I have already screened them out. I am pretty sure that if I were truly adding sources with merely passing mentions, at least double that number could be included. With 8 strong sources that provide SIGCOV, GNG is undoubtedly fulfilled. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely on WP:NONENG - but I can only see very, very short print snippets in Chinese/Mandarin being brought up here. Perhaps someone might like to step up to: "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote."... Because absent that, these sources are a) very short and b) being in print and not English, effectively non-verifiable - WP:PROOF Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Alexandermcnabb, the two reasons you listed are contradictory. As I mentioned, 8 of the 9 sources I cited are full-length articles, averaging hundreds of words each. It is exceedingly demanding for me to translate all of them. If you expect long, detailed articles with SIGCOV on the subject, then anticipating a full-length translation of hundreds or thousands of words in the footnote is unrealistic. Also, I have linked all of the articles, and they are digitally accessible, so being in print is not a concern. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Ireland

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

Robert E. Ireland has a messy and (and coincidentally, also without many sources) Wikipedia article. There aren't really enough sources to establish anything beyond the fact that this guy existed, which unfortunately isn't enough for WP:GNG, plus it doesn't have significant coverage. Pitille02 (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, France, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the nominator could explain how they failed to consider WP:PROF and the obvious claim of notability through WP:PROF#C5 in the article ("Thomas Jefferson Chair Professor of chemistry at the University of Virginia"). The Ernest Guenther Award may also pass #C2, and his citation counts look high enough for #C1. Note that WP:PROF notability is independent from WP:GNG and does not rely on the existence of in-depth independent sourcing, but we have that also in three published obituaries (not counting the alumni magazine one), all of which have a half-dozen or so in-depth paragraphs about the subject and are independent from each other and Ireland and reliably published. To add to that we have one in-depth review of a book by him [19], not enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR but adding to the depth of sourcing in general, and entire papers about the Ireland–Claisen rearrangement named after him [20]. So I think we may have a pass of WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites and a above. A trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Arab Motors TV

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this to establish notability. The article also gives off advertisement vibes. GranCavallo (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Middle East. GranCavallo (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG with vim, verve and brio. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fail WP:N and WP:V Ugh? Completely unsourced?? Tesleemah (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barlow (conductor)

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

Appears to have received coverage primarily as Joanna Lumley's husband, without much discussing his career or anything else outside of that relationship, thus I can't say I see notability here. A redirect to Lumley's page seems appropriate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless DNC

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

Confusing mix of various technologies. Combines and conflates multiple technologies for transmitting data to a CNC machine, which might have been interesting when the article was written in 2008 but doesn't really stand out at all in today's much more wireless-friendly era. Doesn't really have a main topic and fails WP:GNG. Note the additional criticism from a claimed SME on the talk page. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (2nd nomination)

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

The meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.

RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by comment) This Forbes article is not reliable. It was written by a "Contributor" which is equivalent to user-generated content. See WP:FORBESCON. C F A 💬 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The duck test only applies to sockpuppetry and copyright violations. Not to article content like original research. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I don’t believe Forbes, especially “contributor” content from Forbes, is a reliable source. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think this article is very good for what it does and its more rare than a tornado emergency, meso-gamma is basically a small area so that just makes sense for the name meso-gamma mcd ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:

1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.

2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).

Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".

In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.

But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions; the article was retitled to fix its dash very shortly after the first nomination closed. (No opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note quickly, the reason the first nomination of this article for deletion ended with arguments roughly stating that it passed notability guidelines due to secondary sourcing and that more sources would be added. However, if you look at most of the secondary sources, most are for the ratings of tornadoes / wind events themselves, not at all the meso-gamma discussions. The meso-gamma discussions are hardly notable in themselves, nor is sourcing for the meso-gamma designation easy to come by directly without interpretation much more volatile and subjective than WP:CALC was intended for. This is also why I'm not fully in support of reworking the article to specific tornadoes, and why maybe the article shouldn't have survived that first AfD discussion. OR and notability of the meso-gamma discussions themselves is the debate, not the notability of the events they're linked to. Departure– (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – in that case, my original delete !vote remains valid. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to completely change the direction of the page shouldn't be discussed here. If the article gets deleted, it gets deleted, and the new list can be WP:BOLDly created and challenged independently. See also WP:HIJACK, which, although not as blatant as the examples there, and guided by contributor's consensus, it's still better to make the page seperately. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said @Departure–; my !vote to delete ain’t changing. I just threw out the move as an “acceptable alternative” that would solve the OR problem. Nothing will solve the LISTCRUFT problem. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I can understand @WeatherWriter‘s desire to keep the article. After all; he’s the one who created the article. I too would probably be passionate about keeping an article that I created. And would probably be real quick too !vote keep on the list of West Virginia tornadoes or the 2022 Appalachian floods article for that reason. But that still doesn’t change the fact that this is a potential OR violation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree 03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
- Kompas is a major Indonesian newspaper, basically the Times of the country. The quoted article is an interview with the subject, which as per the article linked was also in the print edition. I'm also seeing a response to accusations related to the film (Indonesian), discussion of his views on legal issues,
- Detik is another solid source, and already cited in our article. There are still more sources like his response to accusations of partisanship,
I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pulled open KompasPedia, and it is published by Kompas. Coverage is sufficient to show GNG, IMO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée naval

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

There were no refs on the page until I added one earlier. On further reflection I am not seeing anything else and I don't think this is sufficient to meet the GNG. fr.wiki is of no real help as the only substantive sources there are from the French government. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and France. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is also the unsourced Brest Naval Training Centre and the barely-sourced École navale and École de maistrance. Probably sourcing is too thin for individual articles but some merger would be preferable to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brest Naval Training Centre, or possibly merge both to Brest Arsenal. I don't see sufficient coverage about this high school; my French isn't good enough to determine if there is sufficient coverage of the training center. For the Arsenal itself, the current government sources (and 200 years of historical records) are enough, even though the sourcing in that article is sub-par. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brest Naval Training Centre or else keep. - This one is made tricky by my lack of access to possible sources, because at least one of the sources I found seems quite confusing, but would tend to confirm notability. I am leaning keep, but coming down on the side of Merge because French wikipedia tells us that Brest Naval Training Centre is located the buildings of the former Naval school, and now hosts two training schools (écoles de formation) and this lycée. That is, the Naval training centre is a combined naval training and education facility that would be a good home for this article content, and could be expanded. However, WP:MADRENAME is required. This page should correctly be either Lycée naval de Brest or its English name Brest naval high school. Those would be how this is searched for, and the current name would make a poor redirect.
Now as to why I would be leaning keep, and think this should be at least a merge, I have found extensive mentions, although, without full access to the books, have not proven SIGCOV. Some examples:

Le Monde de l'éducation (in French). S.A.R.L. Le Monde. 1994. - Le Monde is a French paper of record and these mentions are in a published collection. I cannot verify the indpendence of these mentions, as they are in an educational supplement, but likely are independent.
Gautier, Sébastien (13 July 2016). Une si belle journée (in French). Les Éditions du Net. ISBN 978-2-312-04548-1. - Mentions in a book about diving.
Bouvier, Claudia (23 March 2022). Codename Corvus Thriller: Band 1 Die Iskander - Verschwörung (in German). tredition. ISBN 978-3-347-47148-1. - Mentions in a German work of fiction.
Lormier, Dominique (4 May 2016). Histoires extraordinaires de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (in French). Cherche Midi. ISBN 978-2-7491-4084-1. - This book is about extraordinary :stories from the Second World War. It mentions this school, which would be very signiifcant, except it is apparently impossible - the school was started in 1968. I do not have the book, and I cannot see enough of the preview to unravel this. It may be, however, that the prior school is what is meant.

In addition to these there are very many news articles and other links (lots of books that are self published - so I ignored those). But it is a particular school in a historic building, one of just a few such schools and hosted in a nationally significant naval training centre. It should be kept in some form. But per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think the merge is appropriate (at least unless and until enough information is found for a spinout). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we have "don't delete", looking for more sources (to take us to keep) or for confirmation that merge is the way to go at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020)

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

A poorly sourced, heavily POVish, irredentist, COI looking, non-notable article, basically meant to portray Armenia, the Republic of Artsakh and Iran as the "big bad", a common rhetoric spewed by the Aliyev-ruled regime in Azerbaijan (see Azerbaijani nationalism, Anti-Iranian sentiment in Azerbaijan, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, all well sourced and which go into more depth). Refers the Republic of Artsakh as a "separatist regime in Karabakh", not even referring to it by name [21], not very neutral.

Poor sources include Brenda Shaffer, under Aliyevs paycheck [22], the racist and irredentist GünAz TV [23], and more poor websites, the majority written in Azerbaijani. Uses the irredentist term "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" as well [24]. If this is so notable, I'm sure high-quality WP:RS in English can be found about this, but there isn't. The Azerbaijani, Russian and Turkish versions of this article was also written by the same person, who was amongst the many people mentioned in this pretty large COI thread about several Azerbaijani wiki users [25]. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. The article is filled with bias and unscholarly sources. Not to mention the major WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, and WP:PROPORTION violations. Archives908 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, there is bias against this article I wrote about the actions of a regime that disregards human rights. I kindly ask as many people as possible to participate in the voting and to familiarize themselves with the facts I will present. Additionally, I request you to review the article yourself and know that I have not yet fully finalized it.

I am writing sequentially regarding the individual's comments about the article.

The article is about the protests that took place in Iran in 2020. Hundreds of news articles have been prepared in various languages (including Persian and Armenian) about those detained during these protests. Books have been written, and research papers have been published. Amnesty International has expressed its concern regarding those detained. Several protests have taken place on different dates in more than one Iranian city. Hundreds of people have been beaten and persecuted. Elderly people, women, children, and even disabled individuals have been beaten and insulted during these protests. The person suggesting the deletion of the article refers to it as a "non-notable article." I can only express my regret toward this request.
Contrary to what the individual claims, nothing has been written against Armenia in the article. On the contrary, even official Armenian websites have been utilized.
Regarding the topic of the "separatist regime in Karabakh," regardless of how you write its name in the article, that territory is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and there are four UN resolutions regarding its occupation. So how should a regime established in an actually occupied territory be named? Moreover, I have only written the expression in that section. In another part of the article, I referred to that entity as the "so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." Therefore, you can mention that entity in whatever way you wish in the article. It does not affect the subject or essence of this article.
There is also no problem regarding "Brenda Shaffer" and "Günaz". If you do not accept those references, you can delete them.
It is very interesting that for some reason you are trying to inflate the references to "Günaz", which were used only twice in an overall article with 246 references, to make the entire article appear weaker. Those references also confirm the same fact. You can delete them as well.
Regarding the expression "Southern Azerbaijan(is)," that region has been referred to in several historical sources and books related to dialects, territory, and population as "South Azerbaijan" or "Iranian Azerbaijan." It does not matter to me whether people living there are called "southern Azerbaijanis" or "Iranian Azerbaijanis." As far as I can see, you have made corrections related to this in the article. Thank you for your efforts.
Other users who will vote should know that a total of 246 references in five different languages have been used in the article. The references include reports from Radio Free Europe, BBC, DW, Iranwire, Voice of America, and reports from the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. I do not understand what other "reliable sources" the individual wants.
There are dozens of video facts, photos, and reports related to these events. You can familiarize yourself with them through external links.

The facts I presented show how biased this individual is towards the topic. I hope the community makes a correct decision. If you need any further assistance or modifications, feel free to ask! --Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just that you even used the racist and irredentist Gunaz says more than enough about you and this article, whether you used it 1 or 10 times. I find it rich that you accuse me of being "biased", when your article reads like a Aliyev tabloid. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand why you are showing such an aggressive attitude.

What is the difference between writing “Günaz” or “GünazTV”?

On the other hand, about Aliyev topic, there are not any statements or reactions neither at the government, nor president level. If there is no such statement then what’s the point of mentioning Aliyev?

Why didn’t you show any reactions toward other parts of my article? Do you have any other issues toward the references other than “Günaz”? Why don’t you talk about them? Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, read up above. It also doesn't directly have to be government issued statements for it be in line with their rhetoric, that goes without saying. This article is taking a heavy pro-Aliyev stance - as you said yourself, others can review the article for themselves. Read also the policies that Archives908 posted. Meanwhile, I'll use the rest of my time to look more into the COI concerns that were brought up about you and the other users. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, it looks like a notable phenomenon and it's not based just on Azerbaijani sources, Voice of America is used 34 times. It's true that Azerbaijani sources might be biased, so I would support trimming the article or balancing it if other sources do not support these claims. Alaexis_¿question? 22:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is WP:UNDUE and is in breach of WP:NPOV. It includes a large list of subpar low quality sources and reads like a propaganda work. The article should be deleted. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious WP:POV violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.189.211.50 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC) _{Non-EC users may not vote, per WP:GS/AA. Grandmaster 11:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)}.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that while deletion can be used to address NPOV violations, it is only done in extreme cases where the article is unsalvageable. If the topic is notable, and POV or WP:UNDUE can be fixed by stubifying, then deletion is not the appropriate approach. Editors are encouraged to trim down the article to remove POV and UNDUE violations while this AfD is open, and discuss the notability of the topic based on sourcing, rather than reject the current content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- While taking into consideration the relisting comment- the article is written with such a great deal of bias that it is hard to decipher fact from bias. Imo WP:TNT may be the only optimal solution here. Any WP:N content not riddled with bias can always be merged into Azerbaijan–Iran relations. Archives908 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support a selective merger with Azerbaijan–Iran relations, then? It's not clear from your !vote. Alternatives to deletion, if possible, are almost always preferable. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I still support deletion, I think a selective merger is a fair alternative to deletion. I don't think it's notable enough to warrant its own article imo. Whatever can be salvaged can be merged into Azerbaijan–Iran relations, while the biased pov can be TNT'd. Archives908 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Thank you very much, Owen×.

I would like to reiterate that the person who nominated the article for deletion is biased against the article and its subject, trying to protect the interests of a regime that persecutes, kills, and has imprisoned people for years in a Sharia state. Therefore, I feel regret.

~~Let’s move on to the article.~~ The events described in the article are real. People have fought for days and months, resulting in arrests, beatings, and persecution. Many have been subjected to insults in front of their relatives and family members, and have received lashings to humiliate them. These facts have been confirmed by reputable news sites such as "Voice of America," "Radio Free Europe," "BBC," and by international organizations like "Amnesty International" and the U.S. Department of State.

The user who nominated the article for deletion is unhappy because I referenced a certain organization’s site only twice, despite the fact that the article has a total of 246 citations. The overwhelming majority of those citations are from the reputable sites and organizations I mentioned above.~~Even if the user insists on removing those 2 citations, I would not object, yet they remain dissatisfied for some reason.~~

The user also claims that the phrase "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" is inappropriate. At the same time, I have no objection to "Iranian Azerbaijanis" being used. In fact, I have considered this in the later sections of the article as well.~~Yet the user is still not satisfied. Why?~~

Furthermore, the individual is also upset about my translations of the articles into other languages. I have translated many of the articles I have written into various languages that I know, and I enjoy doing so. This not only enhances my foreign language skills but also supports the Wikipedia movement.~~Why does this activity bother this user?~~

Later, the user claims that this article reflects the position of Aliyev. I would like to reiterate to other users that neither Aliyev nor any other members of the Azerbaijani government have made any statements, opinions, or speeches on this topic. Naturally, there is no discussion of this in the article either. Anyone who claims otherwise should provide their evidence.

For some reason, this user seems to be trying to hide the actions of the repressive mullah regime, tarnishing the article with unrelated topics, exaggerating minor errors, and disregarding reputable sources and statements, including reports. I hope the community makes the right decision. It is not acceptable to delete such an extensive article and important events due to just one or two minor errors.--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are only allowed one bolded !vote per discussion. Also, casting aspersions on other participants will not sway the decision your way. Please stick to policy- and guideline-based arguments about the topic and sourcing. Owen× ☎ 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just WP:REHASH of your earlier comment with a even bigger sprinkle of WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These events received coverage in the international media. For example, in Deutsche Welle, RFE/RL, Al Jazeera, so the notability is obvious. NPOV concerns are not the reason to delete the article, they can be addressed by improving it. Grandmaster 11:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not think notability is an issue. A quick glance at the article shows it draws heavily on reliable sources, such as Voice of America, BBC and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe. The event is definitely well covered. Branding the text as "Aliyev-ruled regime propaganda" is not very reasonable given that a great deal of the Azerbaijani sources cited in the article actually represent Azerbaijani opposition (Meydan, Musavat). Some references probably do need double checking, but notability is definitely not an issue. I am also not sure when "irredentism" became an argument in favour of deleting an article on Wikipedia, considering that Republic of Artsakh, the very article the nominator refers to in their deletion rationale, essentially conveys an irredentist concept. Parishan (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of the article is a notable, there are many reliable sources mentioned by other users.--Nicat49 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All of the sources (Turkish is my mother-tongue, so I examined all of them.) are promotional. The page needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, Iran, and Turkey. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nomination rationale. The references are dated closely together, are similarly worded, and do not seem to reflect independent journalism. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to satisfy WP:GNG, seen coverage in numerous sources. Some recent ones do seem to be around the same timeframe but from what I can see is from reputable and acceptable news websites. There seems to be older articles as well which aren't necessarily referenced in the article, but still demonstrate notability. Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob. H. Brodie, please read this policy. Promotional content is not allowed on Wikimedia projects. Best, Kadı Message 13:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have read and I don't find this applicable to me especially on the 'paid contribution'. If there are promotional texts in the article I'm happy to go and correct it. I'm even happy to add things that would be deemed negative to the subject if that's important and there are sources from it. But from what I have gathered and seen I don't think the article should be deleted on the basis provided above. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to maintain articles that have acceptable sources, which I am confident this article has. Best Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 14:05, 27 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!} 21:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, while I respect the reasoning behind the proposed deletion of Vafaei’s page, I believe the sources cited provide independent and impartial information. I see that he has been featured in many Turkish and global sources. Yashar Vafaei’s work, particularly his contributions in sustainable investment and economic development, holds significant value for society. The sources are not for promotional purposes but rather drawn from credible global sources that illustrate his impact in the business world and beyond. If there are sections that seem biased, I would be happy to assist in making necessary adjustments. I recommend preserving the page to continue offering valuable information to the public. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Youtuberhakankeles, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributing to the discussion. I was wondering if you happen to know this individual in a personal or professional context? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker, thank you for reaching out and for the warm welcome. Yes, I do know Yashar Vafaei and am familiar with his work. I’m here to contribute to this discussion to ensure that the article remains neutral and informative, following Wikipedia’s guidelines. I understand the importance of unbiased representation and would be happy to make any necessary edits to keep the content aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you for your guidance and feedback! Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 4J Studios. asilvering (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reforj

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

Lack of Detail writing UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and classify as stub. Article from what I can tell reaches notability criteria. Mockapedia (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about which notability guideline you believe it meets @Mockapedia? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Got a flurry of coverage, none of it substantial. Classic WP:TOOSOON article for a game that will probably be notable some years from now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4J Studios. I definitely considered keeping the article and classifying it as stub, but redirecting it to 4J Studios until the project has came far enough in development for WP:TOOSOON to be not be applicable is a better choice. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meet GNG --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i've expanded it significantly, should be let go now and the nomination for deletion can be removed Doktor"74 (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4J Studios and/or draftify it until the game receives better coverage closer to release. WP:TOOSOON if there's not even a release date and the article itself is saying any features are subject to change. Not seeing why this can't be dealt with on the developer's page for now. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. There is legitimate potential for this to become notable, with good sources. But those sources don't exist yet. A redirect is the best way to remove an article without sufficient sourcing, while respecting credible evidence that this could one day be expanded. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You have in-depth coverage from Gameindustry.biz covering the game's engine and the studio's approach to development, as well as standard coverage from RPS, PCGamesN, GameSpot, and Eurogamer. It may be a bit too soon but there is enough for a proper article. OceanHok (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow for discussion of references added since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Shaw

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

Non notable individual. Article is sourced pretty much entirely to press releases or companies associated with the individual. Also contains an unsourced list of non notable minor festival award. Spanneraol (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources indicate any sort of notabiliy. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See that there list of awards? Not one blue link there. Not one. The only thing I could find was an induction into the British Colombia Hall of Fame. And I'm not at all sure that's enough. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.