Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today
Read how to nominate an article for deletion.
- Um Natal Rastônico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews, no awards, and insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Brazil, and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Marco Villanueva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. Coverage is limited to database sources, apparently as a footballer made 2 substitute appearances in 2012/13 and nothing since. C679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. C679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vinhere railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is not notable. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:JNN - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to Konkan Railways. A quick google search only brought up info about the train timetable at the station, no other sources. TNM101 (chat) 08:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Maharashtra. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Guntramsdorf-Thallern railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to be notable. No content other then it's location. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- İzmir–Denizli Regional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged 5 years ago as uncited and I cannot find it on https://www.tcddtasimacilik.gov.tr/tr/ana_hat_trenleri Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sponsler, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A rail point, one gathers to serve the once-neighboring mine. Get hits on the name but not on the place. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Azhar Iqubal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable entrepreneur. Possible WP:BLP1E (Participation in Shark Tank India). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bihar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mike Abrams (criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for sourcing issues since 2017. Not clear the subject meet WP:GNG or is compliant with WP:CRIMINAL.4meter4 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Notability not established. No inline citations whatsoever. Spideog (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep (?) I never know how to write these mobster articles, but he is described as a significant mobster in several books on the topic, including topical crime encyclopedias. [1] [2] [3]. I will add sources later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Everything in the article was in those two books. Could probably be expanded further he's covered a decent amount but it at least verifies now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Civionics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Invented discipline which is very uncommon and does not pass any notability tests. Most GS hits are for a company with this name, very little secondary sourcing. It was AfD'd in 2008 and retained them based upon the argument that it was a "nascent discipline" and had a few sources. 16 years later it can no longer be considered nascent, it is a failed neologism. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete This minor (attempted?) neologism doesn't appear to have taken significant hold of the public imagination. At best, it might merit inclusion as a minor, restricted jargon in Wiktionary? But I'm not even convinced of that. Spideog (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep like a diamond for a retirement fund. I really have to ask Spideog if he did searches of the term on Google Books and Google Scholar, as those settle the case for keeping an article on this in stone. Google Scholar provides you no shortage of pieces entirely on the discipline (with its name in the headlines of these many articles), and several books, all WP:ACADEMIC from as early as 2004 all the way to 2022 have dedicated at least a page talking about this concept in detail. Some examples: A 2007 book I found dedicated an entire section about a case study of civionics. A CRC Press book from 2020 covered the usage of a civionics system on a bridge in Winnipeg, so clearly this is being incorporated into the real world. This definitely indicates a frequently-encountered subject in the world of engineering and technology. Even a normal Google search should've started giving you this coverage by the third page. Granted, all of the coverage is in academic journals, but since Wikipedia holds a crown to those above any others, and the sources for this topic are plentiful, that's really not a point against it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Abu al-Qusur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not look like it is notable, no content other than it's location and population. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Battle of Bhutala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.
Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Natività della Vergine, Thiene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Igor Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant and independent coverage, far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Singapore, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Otumfuo Educational Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Almost all the sources are either primary or press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2022–23 Moldovan Youth League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Joelle Forte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: This is an interesting one. Forte received a couple paragraphs of coverage in the New York Times when she was 11 in an article discussing junior skaters [[4]] (although it does not pass WP:YOUNGATH, it still provides additional context to the subject). The subject also enough coverage at [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] and [[8]] to meet the WP:GNG Let'srun (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep As per Let's run there is much more coverage on this one than the majority of AfD skating articles.Canary757 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jayant Kashyap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. A lot of the sources are unreliable or primary. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC and the creator of the article appears to have a COI. Frost 00:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Do credible peer-reviewed sources (or those managed by editors) over a period of time (at least since 2017) like The Poetry Society (UK), The Bombay Literary Magazine, Poetry Magazine, etc. count? As it is, one of his poems has been handed out in schools in the UK as part of a UK Dept for Education project. The same poem was presented at COP26, the United Nations Climate Conference, in 2021. His work is also known in the UK, with his forthcoming pamphlet having created somewhat of a buzz. Through The Poetry Society's partnership with the University of Hertfordshire to support their MA Animation students in producing animated films, one of Kashyap's poems was made into a short film. Several other videos of his poetry readings have also appeared on YouTube through different organisations. I'm curious—would any of this not count?
- Jayant KA$HYAP (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! As mentioned before, I've made sure to use statements from different websites, such as where work is reviewed and not just published, with comments from editors of journals, or people who review his work. I suppose this will increase once Kashyap's new pamphlet is out (probably around May) but until then, there are a considerable amount of sources, including news articles and press releases, that have made a mention.
- Also, since it is not an autobiography, nor am I connected to the subject of the article, I'm removing the autobiography tag from the top of the page. I removed one other tag, which mentioned a lack of backlinks(?) to this page –- this I did after finding links (for this page) to several other pages. Please do let me know if there's been an issue! Also, I intend to add more discussion about the subject from a few more sources I've found. Could you please review in, say 24 hours, with the point in mind that there'll still be some material to add? Thank you!
- GreenBlast4 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see notability yet. Two pamphlets and a zine, published by small non-notable presses, that's not enough for notability. In addition, much of the content (as the nominator and others saw) lacks proper sourcing. Like, this is supposed to verify that one of the subject's poems was nominated for an award--but this is a website that publishes one of the subject's poems, and the note about the nomination no doubt came from the author, before we even get to the notability of the award, "Sundress Publication’s Best of the Net", there's the question of a. why isn't there better sourcing and b. is a nomination for this worth mentioning in the first place. And that can be repeated for many of the factoids and instances of namedropping in the article. So, "His third pamphlet, Notes on Burials, won the Poetry Business New Poets Prize in 2024, judged by the poet Holly Hopkins"--yes, but who is Holly Hopkins, and how is that Poetry Business Award (the author's writing of the article notwithstanding) a notable award contributing to notability? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I understand, being nominated for both the Pushcart Prize and the Best of the Net is something big in the poetry world. People like Amitav Ghosh have won Pushcart Prizes, and there are more than a few famous poets I've read (and could name) who've been included in the BotN anthology. I remember seeing a blog post mentioning the same, and tried retrieving it best as I could – however, since you mentioned, here's a twitter/x link (from a different journal) nominated Kashyap's name: https://x.com/AtlasAndAlice/status/1707414323545493536. And oh, the magazine you noted: https://x.com/Briefly_Zine/status/1576968035248009217. As for the Poetry Business award, here's the Poetry Business article you could take a look at – I understand they're a big name in the UK, and the current UK Poet Laureate and the previous one were both first published by the said press. Friend, I understand you're making efforts to keep Wikipedia as reliable as one can, and I thank you for asking the right questions, and I understand the bit about notability. I'm still curious though that while many pages/articles with much less information are kept up, how is this one not good enough compared to those? Thanks again! GreenBlast4 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS. And the creator’s username indicates possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Develop Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia General Notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Africa, Cameroon, and Sierra Leone. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Eli Jae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cited sources are the usual promotional music releases and public relations, nothing we can use to write an encyclopedic entry. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultraman Mebius (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources is just a minimal interview (not really a reception) + a listicles/trivia content. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ultraman Mebius since he is the star of that show. Zero stylinx (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is agreement on Redirection and the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultraseven (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I tried to do a semi WP:BEFORE, but most of the sources were about the film. The sources that are currently used were mostly about listicles/rankings/top or popular lists, while the reception is an interview? mixed with merchandise. Merchandise doesn't help notability either, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ultraseven page, since he is the star of that show, as well as the possibility to access the page's old history log if some articles and sources are worth salvaging. And no, Greenish Pickle, don't redirect it to Ultraman franchise page or that 1966 TV show. Zero stylinx (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect and agreement on the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Amzy B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Almost all the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable musical artist, fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mr. Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, History, Politics, Economics, Geography, Kansas, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- MonoMono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find any significant coverage for this band which only existed for about five years, according to the article.
Article does not make any of the claims for notability found in WP:BAND. Book/print sources seem to just be brief, in-passing mentions from what I can tell. A couple other mentions exist [9] but are again slight passing mentions. The dead pop matters source covers the band slightly in-depth but is the only one I can find; WP:BAND requires multiple. archived
It seems as if Joni Haastrup, lead member of the band, may be notable in and of himself and deserving of an article but this project band does not seem to be.
~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- List of Indian Premier League awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete just because the IPL takes every stat is can think of an then sells someone sponsorship for an "award" for it, that doesn't mean we need this awards article. All sufficiently covered in the stats article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The closest analog is Women's Big Bash League, the longest-standing women's T20 franchise league. Women's Big Bash League#Season summaries has a table listing the recipients of the "Most runs", "Most wickets", "Player of the Tournament", and "Young Gun" awards for each season, essentially the same as IPL's "Orange Cap", "Purple Cap", "Most Valuable Player", and "Emerging Player" awards covered in this article. IPL's Orange and Purple Caps have also received significant independent coverage in major cricket news websites, such as ESPNcricinfo. The merge target proposed by @Vestrian24Bio, List of Indian Premier League records and statistics has a different scope, focusing on all-time records, analogous to Women's Big Bash League#Statistics and records. Finally, merging to Indian Premier League#Awards is not an option here as the main IPL article is 173,624 bytes (almost twice the size of the corresponding WBBL article). I would support the removal of sections covering sponsored awards of negligible importance — I would be surprised if the
Visit Saudi beyond the boundary longest six
award has received much independent coverage — but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Preimage (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- @Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vestrian24Bio, you stated
similar to every other cricket [league]
— which is manifestly not the case. ESPNcricinfo (together with The Cricket Monthly, its longform magazine) is widely considered to be one of the top non-paywalled websites covering cricket. Even Wisden's weighted in here — admittedly, the first hit I found was an article on how cricket's long-standing focus onaggregate runs
is statistically illiterate and should be replaced with Moneyball-style advanced metrics — but the point is that these awards are considered to be conventionally important. I'd support a merge into Indian Premier League if we could combine the 4/5 most important awards into a single table as the WBBL article manages to do. Merging into the records and statistics article isn't really an option though, its scope is just too different. Preimage (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vestrian24Bio, you stated
- @Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Awards like Orange Cap, Purple Cap and MVP are all noteworthy and covered widely not only in India but outside India too: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. In India, any changes to the holders of these caps and leaderboards receive extensive coverage throughout the season: [17] [18] [19] [20]. In fact, the caps are physically worn on the field by their current holders over the course of the tournament, so these are actual awards with significance and not just stats. As such, merging this article with the proposed target would not be appropriate. A like-for-like comparison would be the FIFA World Cup awards article which covers awards such as Golden Ball, Golden Boot and Golden Glove. The delete voters sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Yuvaank (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Except it isn't a WP:CFORK of the stats article and are actual notable awards as can be seen with the sources I presented. Your usage of double quotes for the word awards just goes to illustrate WP:IDONTKNOWIT unfortunately. Yuvaank (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, FIFA World Cup awards won't even be a proper comparison as it's an international competition as opposed to IPL which is a domestic competition. Vestrian24Bio 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay and not a guideline/policy set in stone. The notability of the list itself is established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. It is seems individual articles on Indian Premier League Orange Cap and Indian Premier League Purple Cap, which were created by @Magentic Manifestations back in 2015, were merged into this list by @Vin09. I can see the reasoning behind the merge, although these two awards are likely to be notable in their own right. Yuvaank (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - People arguing for this topic being notable are arguing on the basis of individual items listed in it being notable, but notability is not inherited. Neither can an sub-topic inherit the notability of an over-arching topic, nor can an over-arching topic inherit the notability of sub-topics within it. Fails WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. IPL's yearly awards are presented as part of the post-match ceremony at the end of each IPL final. They are covered as a group each year in regular news coverage of the final (e.g. [21]), as well as in post-season articles like [22] (comparing ESPNcricinfo's own set of awards to the official IPL 2023 Orange Cap, Purple Cap, Player of the Final, and Player of the Tournament awards). Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a side note, I'd appreciate it if you could also comment on the merge suggestions: the original nominator's comment
All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics
sounds like a proposed merge (to be posted at WP:PM) rather than an AfD nomination to me. If you do consider a merge appropriate, I'd argue that Indian Premier League#Awards would be the best target (as this list was a WP:SUBARTICLE split off for reasons of length), but I'm open to other suggestions: you clearly have more policy expertise in this space than I do. Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, ... [it] is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The topic of the article we are looking at is 'who won the IPL awards each season?' - The first source is titled
IPL 2024 final awards and prize money: Complete list of winners including Orange Cap, Purple Cap and more
. It's a beat report to inform readers 'who won stuff last night?', which starts by covering the events of the final, before switching to the award winners. It has a paragraph covering (what it presumably considers to be) the three most important awards, the Orange Cap, Purple Cap, and Emerging Player of the Season, then provides a full list of winners. While the article doesn't go into a huge amount of detail on each award besides listing its monetary value, the list of award winners shares primary-topic status with the winners of the final. - The second source is an ESPNCricinfo post-season analytics article discussing who they consider to be the most impactful players from the 2023 season. It closely references the major IPL award-winners, starting with its opening phrase:
Faf du Plessis, and not Shubman Gill, is the most valuable player of the IPL 2023
. It reminds readers that Shubman Gill won the MVP and Orange Cap awards two paragraphs later:The Player-of-the-Tournament and the Orange Cap winner Gill was part of a team that had more batters who took up the slack
, before noting theEmerging Player of the Season
, Yashasvi Jaiswal, was 3rd in their ranking. After more batting discussion, it switches to the bowlers:Mohammed Shami - the Purple Cap winner - came second to Siraj in terms of Bowling Impact per match
. While the IPL awards are only a secondary topic of this article, it discusses the four most important/prestigious season-length player award-winners in detail, alongside comparisons to the players their analytics suggest were statistically the best. Preimage (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't. They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases.
- Preimage (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
- ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states
- I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay though, not a policy or guideline. The list's notability can be established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. Yuvaank (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion on what should happen with this article continues up to today. There doesn't seem to be much debate about sourcing but about whether or not this article is a FORK and whether the content are just stats or notable subjects in their own right. And in the past day, participants have brought up the possibility of a Merge which I think is due more consideration. But if participants could just refer to policies, not essays, and give fuller arguments than just a Keep or Delete and consider other options, it will make closing this discussion in a few days easier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Naf War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This war is at best a clash with RS attesting it as a event that fails WP:MILNG with routine coverage only. I performed a search and went through sources used on the article and found the following:
- van Schendel (in English) does not mention this clash. I added this source to the article because:
- van Schendel (translated in 2017) mentions this clash in passing as happening in 2001
- Ahmed (Jago News) explicitly discusses how the Naf War was exaggerated by Major General Fazlur Rahman on a talk show.
- Tehran Times - article I was able to find through a google search, not the most reliable but is mostly routine coverage from 13 Januray 2001
- BBC - article I restored from the 1st deletion, which also describes a short clash on 8 January 2001 and was absent from this article was re-created.
- Mahbub Miah (alo.com.bd) describes the War as starting in January 1 2000 and has questionable neutrality and is the lone standout
- Online Bangla News- source is peacocking and is the only source that uses January 8 2000
At the very least, the last two sources disagree with other sources I could find and with each other. If we discard those two as unreliable sources, there is not enough coverage for a standalone article. This article should be deleted or at least dratified until a narrative can be ascertained from reliable sources.
For context, this article was deleted before for the same reason as a soft delete due to minimal participation. Editor recreated the article from scratch instead of undeleting. Please do note that I attempted to improve the article as I review and found sources, which is the reason for the directly contradictory information currently present. Prior to my edits, the narrative followed the Mahbub Miah source but with the dates from the Online Bangla News source. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- The argument for the removal of this article is not valid. Sufficient references have been provided here, which detail the incident comprehensively. Claiming that the sources are unreliable does not seem appropriate, as the diversity of sources still represents a significant event.
- Furthermore, various documents have been incorporated into the article, making the content more credible and informative. An article enriched with references and documents should not be deleted solely due to discrepancies among sources. Instead, such articles should be further improved through discussion and coordination to ensure accuracy. Therefore, I oppose the proposal to delete this article and believe it should be retained. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ribu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not apparently notable. Sourcing seems largely to a book or websites by Daniel Quinn. No evidence of wider sigcov or notability Golikom (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- George de Meo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability and sourcing since 2017. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- del no evidence of notability. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Keepquite a bit of coverage here [23] [24] [25] [26], for his weapons dealing was "the single most important source of weapons" of The Troubles, quite the claim to notability as evidenced by sigcov. That is without looking into newsy/other book sources (if you are unsatisfied by the sources I have provided or want me to incorporate them into the article, please ping me I will attempt to find more). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- Also several pages of coverage in A Secret History of the IRA (though that might be moreso on Harrison). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA Thank you for finding these. Anything you are willing to do to improve the article is much appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also several pages of coverage in A Secret History of the IRA (though that might be moreso on Harrison). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect. Changing vote since, while notable, everything he is notable for is summed up at Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. ATM I do not see the content for a split, and since his notability is tied up in so many other people I think this is best for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Celts (1978 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. All citations are just scripts and schedules DonaldD23 talk to me 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and Wales. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.
The review provides about 589 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Last week's 'Chronicle' programme, The Celts (BBC 2, Wednesday), seemed to me to adorn its topic rather more than to explain it. Indeed, although it was packed full of information, and although the Heavy Brigade of archaeology—Professor Stuart Piggott and others—moved through it in echelon of squadrons, the programme was, as it were, inefficiently informative; the information was, no doubt, all there, but it did not come across. At least, here is one viewer—anxious to be informed, eager for enlightenment—who found at the end of the program-me that he had learned little new."
The review notes: "Not, then, a documentary in the educational nuts-and-bolts style of, say, an Open University programme on topology (whatever that is), but a sort of reflective essay in the style of Montaigne or—more appropriately—Haz-litt, in which the author explores a theme from a personal standpoint; a theme which he adorns rather than explains. 'The Celts' conveyed a sense of enthusiasm for its subject which, surely, is a legitimate and important function of documentary. One may criticise it, unfairly, because it did not approach its subject in the style of a school or university textbook; one may criticise it, less unfairly, because the manner sometimes got in the way of the matter; one must, however, acknowledge the rare pleasure conferred by 'The Celts' as a creative programme, and the remarkable way in which it re-sensitised one's somewhat atrophied taste-buds to the achievements of Celtic peoples."
- Brayfield, Celia (1975-05-28). "Programme guide compiled by Celia Brayfield". Evening Standard. ProQuest 2712585962. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes: "The Celts. After Saturday's soccer international we in London hardly need to ask "Who were the Celts?" But this series is almost invariably fascinating and this piece of archaeological detective work should be well worth overcoming our prejudices to see. David Parry-Jones finds the Celts a vain lot—inclined to do battle with the Romans without helmets for fear of spoiling their coiffures. They were also, it seems, widespread throughout Europe notorious drunks, addicted to human sacrifice, ruled by wild-eyed Druids and capable of producing the finest art forms of any early European people."
- Day-Lewis, Sean (1975-05-29). "Television: Girl of compassion in Vietnam war". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes: "Commentary is unavoidable in television archaeology, but why David Parry-Jones had to compete with a battery of symphony orchestras and at least one choir in the sound track of J. Mervyn Williams's history of The Celts (BBC-2) I cannot imagine. In truth this was not among best-organised issues of "Chronicle." It was untidy in minor matters like the identification of speakers and left the major issue of where the Celts originated in a kind of Celtic twilight somewhere the plains of Hungary. The principal achievement was to reinforce the prejudices of those who dislike the Celts. One Anne Ross declared that they had lost Maiden Castle in Dorset to the Romans through drink and because they were better at making a noise than fighting. The script of Emyr Humphreys was a bit free with its generalisations."
- Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.
- Israelis in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to really pass GNG for a article by itself on the basis of a claim that at one randomly cited year (2005) 150 Israelis happened to be in China. That is such a trivially small number. A few bus loads of people that happen to be in a country is not notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, 130 people... even lower. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Israel. Heart (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Terrible reason for nomination: I'm sorry, but articles about veterans that are citizens of Western countries alive today should be deleted by like this logic, as they usually make up 1% of the population. I'll admit to having trouble finding coverage about China citizens that are Israeli immigrants, as it seems to be significantly overshadowed by relations between the states of Israel and China, but I am absolutely sick of seeing invalid AFDs like this as of late. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll admit to having trouble finding coverage about China citizens that are Israeli immigrants
– Hi HumanxAnthro (talk · contribs). I've found some sources that I've listed below. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Cunard kicking ass again with a Judaism-related AFD. You go! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Obviously fails GNG. A mere handful of non-notable people, that's all, nothing else. Close to a million people who are not Chinese citizens live in China. One sentence in China–Israel relations would cover this topic adequately. Zerotalk 04:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- merge/redirect to History of the Jews in China. --Altenmann >talk 04:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good option. Zerotalk 05:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to China–Israel relations, there is no reason for a seperate article. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Shai, Aron (2019). China and Israel: Chinese, Jews; Beijing, Jerusalem (1890–2018). Jewish Identities in Post-Modern Society. Boston: Academic Studies Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv209xmn8. ISBN 978-1-618118-94-3. JSTOR j.ctv209xmn8. Retrieved 2025-01-11 – via Google Books.
The book notes on page 239: "This book covers three axes: historical-political, economic-trade, and personal-communal (the Jews and Israelis in China)."
The book notes on page 128: "Shaul Eisenberg’s extensive experience in China paved the way for other Israeli businesspeople, both directly and indirectly—but where Eisenberg met with enormous success, many others experienced only failure." The book notes on page 129: "Bruno Landesberg, controlling owner and former chairman of Sano-Bruno Enterprises Ltd., a major Israeli cleaning products company, was first drawn to the Chinese market after a Chinese delegation that visited Israel in the 1980s expressed interest in his products. Delegation members proposed that they establish a similar factory in China. Landesberg was excited by the idea and began to act. Along the way he was enchanted by the Chinese culture and people. He set himself the goal of putting down stakes in China. First he consulted with Shaul Eisenberg, and the two began to work together in the early 1990s."
The book notes on page 137: "Amos Yudan, one of the first Israelis to develop business relations with China, had a definitive opinion on the fates of Sano and Osem there.240 In the case of Sano, he believed that the main error was in the company’s structure."
- Medzini, Meron (2019-07-10). "The sixth wave - Israeli communities in East and South East Asia". International Journal of Business and Globalisation. Vol. 23, no. 1. pp. 153–165. doi:10.1504/IJBG.2019.100840.
The article notes: "One study has shown that at least 70% of small businesses started by Israelis in China have failed (Medzini, 2016b). They could not deal with the local language, culture, laws and regulations and legal system. They do not have the stamina it takes to build a business in Asia, nor do they have the time ..."
- Menahem, Sarit (2010-02-05). "'Land of Challenging Opportunities': Israeli businesses have a lot to offer China, and are appreciated by their counterparts there. But they still have some basic lessons to learn if they want to succeed in its highly competitive climate". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
The article notes: "Paztal and other Israeli businessmen constitute a small business community in China, most of which is concentrated in Beijing and Shanghai; in the former, there are an estimated 400-500 Israeli families. "Based on data gathered by the consulate, it is hard to say just how many Israelis are here, because not all of them are registered. There is a small group of veterans that has been here for over a decade. At consulate events you see a lot of new faces," explains Arie Schreier, vice president of PTL Group, who has lived in China for the past six years. The population of Israelis in China's large cities is composed mainly of independent business owners, who have succeeded in establishing small- to medium-sized firms. These businesses deal in the export of Chinese goods, high-tech, Internet, security and food products, as well as real estate. ... An impressive number of Israelis arrive via employee relocation by large Israeli companies or multinationals operating in China. These include Nice, Israel Chemicals, ECI, Intel, John Bryce and HP."
- Gurău, Călin; Dana, Leo-Paul; Katz-Volovelsky, Erez (August 2020). "Spanning transnational boundaries in industrial markets: A study of Israeli entrepreneurs in China". Industrial Marketing Management. 89: 389–401. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.008.
The abstract notes: "This study investigates Israeli transnational entrepreneurs who provide B2B intermediation services in China. To understand the dynamic evolution of their profile and activity, we apply an interpretative framework that combines practice theory and boundary spanning models to analyze six case studies of Israeli transnational entrepreneurs in China. The findings indicate a gradual evolution of their personal and professional profile, determined by a dynamic interdependence between various forms of capital, entrepreneurial habitus, and circumstantial factors. They mobilize a combination of social, cultural, economic and symbolic capital to span organizational, country, cultural and stage boundaries between Israeli and Chinese individuals and organizations."
- Hellman, Ziv (2010-10-11). "Setting up shop in China". The Jerusalem Report. p. 30. ProQuest 845443912.
The article notes: "Israelis seeking to do business in China, however, face several hurdles, mostly due to significant cultural differences that make relating to the Chinese market a greater challenge than selling to Europeans or Americans. Organizations devoted to introducing China to Israelis have emerged in recent years to answer this need. ... Sitting in IsCham's offices in a high-rise office building overlooking a major motorway in eastern Beijing, Tzur looks completely comfortable working in China, effortlessly explaining to a Beijing taxi driver how to find the office tower over the phone in his native language. Tzur has been the executive director of IsCham's Beijing chapter for two years, since its inception, and was an obvious choice given her background. ... Tzur has led tours of Israelis in China and immersed herself in the study of the Chinese language at the university in Beijing.The work at IsCham might seem a detour in what could be a budding diplomatic career in China, but Tzur says she is very pleased with what she has accomplished there. "We have only had two years of existence," she points out, "and I have already seen how much we have managed to assist Israelis trying to get a start in business here. We have also signed cooperation agreements with 20 other national chambers of commerce operating in Beijing and Shanghai."
- Less significant coverage:
- "Israeli visa curbs ended after meeting". South China Morning Post. 2001-11-06. p. 9. ProQuest 2420383595. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
The article notes: "Terrorism-related visa restrictions threatening the business of about 300 Israeli companies with offices in China were lifted a day after last month's Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) meeting in Shanghai, a Western diplomat said yesterday. ... Israeli business people said at the time it was unfair to be lumped in with terrorists and forced to cancel visits to clients. ... Israelis in China considered postponing trips home for fear their return would be barred. Israeli building security firm ICD Ltd chief executive Ron Efron said he might have laid people off had the restrictions persisted, because two key people stuck outside China forced the firm to forgo business."
- Wagner, Mattew (2007-06-03). "Chinese TV airs Elyashiv's opposition to organ harvesting: Conference at Beilinson to discuss Israeli exploitation of Chinese organ trafficking". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
The article notes: "Some private insurance companies still fund Chinese organ transplants. Dr. Jacob Levee, director of the heart transplant unit at Sheba Medical Center, put the figure since 2004 at 200-300 kidney transplants performed on Israelis in China, 20 heart transplants and 10 liver transplants."
- "Israeli visa curbs ended after meeting". South China Morning Post. 2001-11-06. p. 9. ProQuest 2420383595. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
- Shai, Aron (2019). China and Israel: Chinese, Jews; Beijing, Jerusalem (1890–2018). Jewish Identities in Post-Modern Society. Boston: Academic Studies Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv209xmn8. ISBN 978-1-618118-94-3. JSTOR j.ctv209xmn8. Retrieved 2025-01-11 – via Google Books.
- The topic Israelis in China meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I considered whether Israelis in China should be covered in a standalone article or in History of the Jews in China. I think many of the sources I listed here call the subjects Israelis (and many don't say whether the subjects are also Jews). So it would be original research and possibly inaccurate to assume all the Israelis discussed in those sources are Jews and to cover the topics in History of the Jews in China. I also considered whether to merge this article to China–Israel relations. The sources focus on the Israeli businesspeople who live in China and not as much on the relations between China and Israel, so the material from these sources probably doesn't all fit in the relations article. I concluded that it's probably best to have a standalone article for Israelis in China. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep and procedural keep. Keep, as the article meets the WP:GNG based on the sources provided by Cunard. Procedural keep, due to the lack of a coherent rationale for deletion. If a single person can be deemed notable, why can't a group of 130 be notable by definition? Arguments such as there can't be sources, there can't be notability, there must be sources, there must be notability reflect a misunderstanding of our central policies. We assess articles based on criteria such as WP:NEXIST, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Given this, I conclude that both "keep" and "procedural keep" are warranted and can be expressed together, as they lead to the same outcome through different avenues. gidonb (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep The sources provided by Cunard are sufficient to meet GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I am really puzzled about this idea above of holding Israelis equal or near-equal to Jews. What is the basis for that? gidonb (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, the idea of redirecting this to History of the Jews in China does not make sense to me either. I've met one Israeli in China, and he was Druze, not Jewish. In any case, the sources found by Cunard are enough to keep. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input and support. I am personally very big on mergers. I believe our encyclopedia is way too fragmented. However, mergers (and redirects) need to make sense! gidonb (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus right now and at least one participant who objects to equating Israelis with Jews so that makes one Merge/Redirect target article unacceptable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Society for the Defence of Palestinian Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Organization is not notable. Page is also poorly translated and extremely antisemitic, peddling the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory as fact, among other things Pyramids09 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Iran, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Karnaval (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Karnaval is not in and of itself more notable than any of the 29 other FiK 63 losers. Its article consists of: some basic information about the release, identical to that of other FiK entries that were commercially released; a short review section, using only one source that reviews many non-notable songs; information about Festivali i Këngës, which could equally apply to any other FiK entry; credits and personnel, track listing and release history, which are not independently notable. This *could* count as a reasonably detailed article but not more so than that of many other entries that are not given articles because it's understood that they are not notable. It hasn't been ranked on a chart, it hasn't won an award (second place is not an award, otherwise I'd like to see an article for Evita which actually won FiK), it hasn't been independently released by several notable artists, etc. Maybe deserving of an article had it won FiK and progressed to Eurovision, but it didn't. Toffeenix (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge to Elvana Gjata, because duh. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. "because duh" is not an adequate explanation for any outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge to Elvana Gjata The song along does not meet WP:NSONG. SallyRenee (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jonah Herscu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this assistant basketball coach to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was coverage from his days as a high school basketball player (1), which I think would fail WP:YOUNGATH anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Illinois, and Massachusetts. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Herscu gets quoted a lot, but is not the subject of news articles. Does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC SallyRenee (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1901) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local club without significant, non-routine coverage. All we have are match reports, mostly from very local sources, which are primary sources, not the required secondary sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: am biased as I created it, but helps to avoid confusion with other Cleethorpses, and they did get quite deep in the FA qualifying rounds.
- Unfortunately am stuck with local sources because the British Newspaper Archive is no longer available to editors. There are long-standing stub pages extant for clubs of a similar stamp who did not have such good Cup runs. We probably need a definition of Notable for football, but note that the current Cleethorpes Town has not lasted as long a period as this one, plays at a lower level, and has been less successful in the FA Cup. Would it not be recency bias to have the current one but not a predecessor? In Vitrio (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that's relevant in this case - other stuff is evidence that a long run of FA Cup qualifying appearances has long been considered Notable and it does not seem to have been controversial. Especially as the club's run in 1919–20 made them one of the last 90 clubs in the competition, i.e. equivalent of Second Round Proper nowadays. There is not a page for the 1919–20 Qualifying Rounds yet, but in the 1920–21 FA Cup qualifying rounds page, every club reaching that particular stage has its own entry, so if notable in 1920, why not 1919? In Vitrio (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having an article doesn't necessarily mean being notable, just that perhaps no one has checked thoroughly. That's what "otherstuffexists" basically means, you are arguing that other articles are notable or that other similar articles about less notable subjects exist, but you aren't arguing how you will resolve the lack of secondary sources which means that this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. We judge articles on AfD based on policies and guidelines, not on other articles. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- My point is that in EVERY other instance, for a decade, teams which have reached this stage have either been accepted as Notable or nobody has even thought to challenge their notability. Hence all their pages are still standing. I don't get why the exception for this one side. That I cannot find more sources is more down to my access than anything else, and given a start I'd think others could find more. In Vitrio (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having an article doesn't necessarily mean being notable, just that perhaps no one has checked thoroughly. That's what "otherstuffexists" basically means, you are arguing that other articles are notable or that other similar articles about less notable subjects exist, but you aren't arguing how you will resolve the lack of secondary sources which means that this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. We judge articles on AfD based on policies and guidelines, not on other articles. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that's relevant in this case - other stuff is evidence that a long run of FA Cup qualifying appearances has long been considered Notable and it does not seem to have been controversial. Especially as the club's run in 1919–20 made them one of the last 90 clubs in the competition, i.e. equivalent of Second Round Proper nowadays. There is not a page for the 1919–20 Qualifying Rounds yet, but in the 1920–21 FA Cup qualifying rounds page, every club reaching that particular stage has its own entry, so if notable in 1920, why not 1919? In Vitrio (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment – It has three local newspapers in addition to at least two books of specialized literature covering the content. Considering the club existed until the late 1940s, isn't that enough? Svartner (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The books are about Grimsby Town FC, not about Cleethorpes FC. Fram (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I don't really see any problem with the sourcing as a quick search of the British Newspaper Archives brings up more than just local coverage and merging this into one of the other Cleethorpes Town articles doesn't really make sense, but at worst merge to the Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1884) article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you add some of the non-local coverage please? GiantSnowman 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive apart from the search. Just trying to confirm it's notable, not improve it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you add some of the non-local coverage please? GiantSnowman 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep—If additional sources, as described above can be added to the article, I'll support keeping it more wholeheartedly. Anwegmann (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to be operating on the vibes of notability more than the kinds of keep !votes that would establish consensus with this level of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Watts Water Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
OK, lets see what the references here suggest.
- Reference 1 is from GlobalData, which would at first glace appear to be a reliable source. That said, it would seem verify that a company of this name simply exists, and does not support its notability as a corporate entity
- Reference 2 simply asserts that this company is a subsidiary of Emerson Swan, an article that I can see has never been created. While not in any determinative, this would appear that a notional WP:REDIRECT from subsidiary to parent company would have negligible chance of passing a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
- Reference 3 is from that respected broadsheet Foster's Daily Democrat. That said, the lack of a byline and the text "Webster Valve, Inc" suggests that it may possibly be paid content rather than journalistic content
- reference 4 is a Home Depot link that I am unable to access.
- reference 5 is a product page from Lowe's
- reference 6 is an assertion on Yahoo Finance that Watts Water Technologies is listed (as "WTS") on the New York Stock Exchange
It would appear to me that this more complex than a simple WP:A7 about a historical manufacturer of plumbing fixtures and a local company in Franklin, New Hampshire. As always, please do let me do know if you disagree, revert without an edit summary, or whatever you chose otherwise. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Watts is a component of the S&P 400. That alone makes it notable. KMaster888 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's also not a subsidiary. KMaster888 (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep based on @KMaster888's argument
- Taksoh17 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would counter that being listed on a stock exchange does not make a company notable, as per WP:LISTED. Coverage by independent sources is still required to meet notability. SallyRenee (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: looking back over this, it might appear to an independent observer that is an instance of the AFD process being used to basically repair an article, rather than assess it on its merits, and lacked an initial policy-based deletion rationale. Those should have included WP:CORP, WP:GNG and any number of other policies and guidelines. Heck, it looks like this to me, and I am the nominator. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Think this could do with more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: Not a lot of in-depth news coverage but there are analyst reports available and thus this passes WP:NCORP per WP:LISTED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: notable independent sources are available, thus meets WP:CORP, i.e.:
- It doesn't mix with oil, and the market is drinking it up (2005). . New York: New York Times Company. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/doesnt-mix-with-oil-market-is-drinking-up/docview/2227109456/se-2
- Water-products firm's profits boost stock: [1 edition]. (2006, Nov 02). Boston Globe Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/water-products-firms-profits-boost-stock/docview/405041058/se-2
- WATTS WATER: [THIRD EDITION]. (2006, Aug 03). Boston Globe Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/watts-water/docview/405029416/se-2
- New foundry will produce lead-free plumbing products. (2013, Jun 24). The Union Leader Retrieved from url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/new-foundry-will-produce-lead-free-plumbing/docview/1374230277/se-2 SallyRenee (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Francois Dubrulle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cited sources are not enough to establish notability, and I can't see anything better. I'd redirect to the company of which he is CEO, but there is no such article TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The personality of note had a professional career in aerospace industry before starting multiple aerospace ventures. The first part: cited a research paper which has one of his works. His business ventures: bios from the internet has this mention on former ventures; current venture: there are multiple stories around VC funding of his venture, awards etc. Scenecontra (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Scenecontra (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
- --> Since there are enough citations already, I request to keep this article. I will add more links as soon as I find them. Scenecontra (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not the number of cites, it's their quality.TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair point, but aren't sources like Deal Street Asia, Asia Business Outlook, SAE.org, Bloomberg quality websites? And since all of these talk of the subject, I hope they can be considered as sources with quality. Scenecontra (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not the number of cites, it's their quality.TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- --> Since there are enough citations already, I request to keep this article. I will add more links as soon as I find them. Scenecontra (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Spaceflight, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Scenecontra, no, none of those "quality" websites cited are secondary sources, nor are they reliable. Bloomberg has become, to be blunt, deprecated. "It is deception." Bearian (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's harsh, @Bearian.
- Deal Street Asia is a publication that had gotten funding from Nikkei, FT's sister-concern: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-deals/Nikkei-buys-majority-stake-in-DealStreetAsia It is a credible news website in this part of the world.
- Bloomberg is not reliable? Bloomberg L.P. Scenecontra (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for biting. Bloomberg hasn't been reliable since at least 2020. It's filled with user-purchased content and interviews. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noted, but Deal Street Asia is a reputed business news site from this part of the world. The subject has a company and it got funded, per various sources cited. Also, he's an authority in his domain. Here's a book he wrote and I stumbled upon: https://www.amazon.fr/Calcul-Structures-M%C3%A9thode-%C3%89l%C3%A9ments-Finis/dp/2364939070/ Scenecontra (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to highlight his domain authority, sharing this link, where he was a panelist at an event: https://space.org.sg/gstce/gstc-2024-programme/ Scenecontra (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could not see his name there and in any case this would not serve to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://imgur.com/a/UQEjHzq You can see his photo on the right https://space.org.sg/gstce/gstc-2024-speakers/ Being a speaker at a major space event in APAC doesn't merit notability? Scenecontra (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another link, and this one's Techcrunch on the funding and mentions the subject (founder) https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/23/singapore-based-qosmosys-closes-100m-seed-round-to-develop-tech-for-the-moon/ Scenecontra (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://imgur.com/a/UQEjHzq You can see his photo on the right https://space.org.sg/gstce/gstc-2024-speakers/ Being a speaker at a major space event in APAC doesn't merit notability? Scenecontra (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could not see his name there and in any case this would not serve to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to highlight his domain authority, sharing this link, where he was a panelist at an event: https://space.org.sg/gstce/gstc-2024-programme/ Scenecontra (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noted, but Deal Street Asia is a reputed business news site from this part of the world. The subject has a company and it got funded, per various sources cited. Also, he's an authority in his domain. Here's a book he wrote and I stumbled upon: https://www.amazon.fr/Calcul-Structures-M%C3%A9thode-%C3%89l%C3%A9ments-Finis/dp/2364939070/ Scenecontra (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for biting. Bloomberg hasn't been reliable since at least 2020. It's filled with user-purchased content and interviews. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Peter Hyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP. Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Amendement to original rationale: Also should be deleted under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON as an unsourced BLP which is external to notability policies including SNGs. Fails our policy on verification at WP:BLP. 4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. Footnotes to sources raised in the AfD have been added, so this is no longer an unsourced BLP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Amendement to original rationale: Also should be deleted under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON as an unsourced BLP which is external to notability policies including SNGs. Fails our policy on verification at WP:BLP. 4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Agree that the subject is unlikely to pass WP:GNG, but I think they probably pass WP:AUTHOR for their book The Reluctant Metrosexual: Dispatches from an Almost Hip Life. I found reviews in the New York Times [27] and the Washington Post [28], and there are several other usable reviews referenced here [29] although frustratingly I wasn't able to find any of those originals from 2004. Their book is also cited or mentioned in probably a dozen academic books and journal articles, although admittedly not in any great detail. Together I think that's probably enough for a WP:AUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep; there is a pass of WP:AUTHOR per MCE89 with multiple full-length reviews of his book in reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. @Dclemens1971 and MCE89 I would feel a lot better about this if those sources had biographical content but they don't other than perfunctory coverage. The sources are about the book rather than the author. Fundamentally we don't have materials supporting a biography page. Given that it is only a single work, wouldn't this be better repurposed into an article on that one book? This would seem to be a better approach per the spirit of WP:Verifiability. We could always recreate a page on the author if and when a second notable work is created by the subject. We really can only create articles based on the available sources. Otherwise we are fundamentally allowing an unsourced BLP article page which I thought was a big no no on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NCREATIVE is clear that "
Such a person is notable if:... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews...
" There's no requirement for biographical content in such reviews. Biographical content can be added from other sources, but the test of notability is met by what MCE89 identified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NCREATIVE is clear that "
- @Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Go ahead and blank the page in that case; that's a content issue. AfD isn't for content issues, it's for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dclemens1971 To do so in the middle of an AFD would be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:POINTY. Further, this is a BLP policy issue which falls under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON so your assertion that notability policy is the only relevant policy at AFD is false. Deleting under a WP:BLPSOURCES failure rationale is perfectly acceptable under criteria 9. One can meet an SNG but still be deleted if it fails a WP:DEL-REASON criteria external to a notability issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Go ahead and blank the page in that case; that's a content issue. AfD isn't for content issues, it's for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The book is notable, but the author isn't since one needs multiple notable works to demonstrate NCREATIVE, but since this information would be on said article anyway, I could convert it into an article on the book if that is what people wish. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please show where NCREATIVE requires multiple notable works? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion on possibility of converting to an article on the book
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tanger Outlets Cookstown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized article about a shopping mall, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for shopping malls. As always, shopping malls are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass defined inclusion criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing about them -- but the most substantive attempts at notability claims here are promotional fluff like "Tanger Outlets Cookstown contributes to the local economy through job creation, sales tax revenue, and attracting tourists" and "The outlet hosts a wide range of stores and also provides seasonal events and promotions for additional savings", which are par for the course for shopping malls rather than evidence of distinction, and the sourcing consists of a directory entry on a tourist information website (a primary source that is not support for notability at all) and just one piece of run of the mill local coverage in a community hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly satisfy GNG all by itself.
Simple existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a shopping mall from having to have more substance and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Not seeing WP:SIGCOV in Google News, which is where I'd expect to see it if the subject were notable. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2019 Spanish Open (table tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am struggling to find any WP:SIGCOV for this table tennis competition after using various search terms in English and Spanish. I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series unless better sourcing can be located. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Spain. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if other editors support a Redirect or Merge here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2019 North American Open (table tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am struggling to find enough in-depth coverage of this competition to meet WP:GNG. There is this piece from ButterflyOnline, a Japanese table tennis equipment distributor, but not much else other than a few photo galleries (1, 2, 3). I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more opinions on whether or not this article should be Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Junction Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a smalltown strip mall, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for shopping facilities. As always, every mall that exists in the world is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and must show some evidence of significance supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, except for a few hits of purely run of the mill local coverage of things that happened at the mall -- but "person stabbed near (not at) mall" and "drunk drivers do wheelies in parking lot at mall" are not significant notability claims, and there's basically nothing that constitutes coverage about the mall itself.
It also warrants note that this was first created in draftspace last year and rejected by an WP:AFC reviewer, but was then moved by its own creator into mainspace last week without a new AFC review, which is not the proper process for getting an article created.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the mall from having to have more GNG-worthy coverage about it (which is not the same thing as "about insignificant things happening near it") than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fuller Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable road, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GEOROAD and GNG –Davey2010Talk 00:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I am seeing three sources about it:
- Begum, Ayesha (2016) [2012]. "ফুলার রোড" [Fuller Road]. Encyclopedia of Dhaka (in Bengali). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 262–263. ISBN 9789845120197.
- ফুলার রোডকে প্রেম চত্বর মনে করেন বহিরাগতরা
- ফুলার রোডে নিয়ম করে চলে বাইক রেস-স্ট্যান্ট, দুর্ঘটনার আশঙ্কা
The first source is from an encyclopedia which is notable and important for Dhaka-related topics. In this sense, the subject is notable and doesn’t fail. Mehedi Abedin 11:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of these are pretty much LOCALCOVERAGE and TRIVIAL pieces, Unable to view the book so unable to comment on this, imho still fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to come to some conclusion on whether or not these sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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 withdrawn. Needs further investigation (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
My WP:BEFORE was unable to verify anything and I couldn't find any similar events that happened on this date. Furthermore, I couldn't very much find evidence of a town named Gazanchi or Qazanchi in Agham. This mentions a church named Gazanchi in Shusha, as does this and this mentions a village of that name. This (which I can't view beyond a snippet) is somewhat more promising but still doesn't indicate a real "event", let alone verify the claims here. If this isn't a hoax, then it still doesn't mean WP:NEVENT. Cremastra (u — c) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Wait, I just saw there's like 20 more ways to spell this. Putting on hold, might withdraw. Cremastra (u — c) 00:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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.