The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There are many sources for this BLP, however it is the quality of the ones that provide in-depth coverage that are the issue. Most of these are either gossip magazine stories or WP:ROUTINE coverage of reality-TV events. MrsSnoozyTurtle23:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked at the first block of 14 references. Lots of PR, interviews, profiles and clickbait and not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of them. They are all WP:PRIMARY, many of the puff pieces. Not an actress nor a television personality. Most of its generated from Big Brother. scope_creepTalk16:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the second block of references, promos, interviews, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk02:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
BLP written by SPA author who has not responded to a COI request. The coverage in independent sources is largely about her appointment as rector, therefore I think that WP:BIO1E applies. MrsSnoozyTurtle23:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's attempts at WP:OUTING by demanding personal information of editors are both inappropriate and irrelevant. Aberdeen has an unusual governance structure, but it appears that their head academic officer is their pro-chancellor; the rector is an elected representative of the students. So this is not the kind of position that passes WP:PROF#C6, and aside from that Chukwuma-Ezike appears not to be an academic. To me this implies that the appropriate notability criterion is WP:GNG. We do have in-depth news coverage of her in her new position as rector [1][2][3] but we also have coverage of her asthma work [4][5]. Although this additional non-rector coverage does not have as much depth about her, I think it's enough to save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than enough sources shown to meet notability requirements and the author of the article has no relevance to this discussion. While there is a lot of coverage of her appointment and the importance and notability of that, there is also plenty of coverage about her actions as the head of the asthma group. Here's some additional sources beyond those presented above:
Keep. I disagree that WP:BIO1E applies if coverage is largely about one thing, because that means coverage is also about something else. WP:NOTBLP1E deals with this well. Even further to that, it should be about one event, not one thing. Madonna is mostly notable for one thing (singing) she doesn't need to be notable for two things to be the focus of an article.
There is significant coverage in reliable sources (about her appointment, about a ceremony, about Asthma things). It seems like a clear WP:GNG pass to me. Here's some examples:
CT55555, thank you for providing the examples. To explain the BLP1E rationale, it is because the in-depth coverage about her relates to the event that was the appointment to the rector role. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle02:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the position of Rector at a Scottish university is held by a well-known person elected by the students: see University of Aberdeen#Lord Rector, where it shows that her prdedecessors in the role include Winston Churchill and Clarissa Dickson Wright, so indicates her notability. As for the creatiing editor being {tq|"SPA author who has not responded to a COI request")) : it is clear from their talk page that they took part in a "training session and mini-editatathon" led by WikiMedia trainer Watty62 on 25th January and, apart from signing up to WiR on 27th, they have not edited since. Unless they signed up for email alerts for talk page posts, they will probably be unaware of the COI challenge to which they have not replied. I think it is generally accepted that being a student at an institution does not debar an editor from editing about all members of staff or other people associated with that university. PamD08:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was apparently at Buckingham Palace last week as one of the representatives of the University of Aberdeen, which is one of the "Privileged Bodies" which offered loyal greetings to the king - this was the event but I can only see her presence mentioned in her own LinkedIn as yet, rather than a WP:RS suitable for adding to the article, but it's unlikely to be a fabrication. Will presumably appear in Aberdeen city or uni sources in time. PamD09:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Declaration of Interest - I am a Wikimedia UK trainer who ran the training session at which this article was first drafted. The attendees at that training session are all committed to working on the WiR project. The subject of this deletion request holds a prestigious position while in office (ie not a single event). All previous holders of the position of Rector of the University of Aberdeen since 1809 with only 5 exceptions (each of which ought to be addressed) are the subject of WP articles. Further, the current holder is only the third woman, and first person of colour I believe, to have held that role. Additionally, others have mentioned her notable work at the Asthma charity which she leads which ought to be fleshed out once the possibility of deletion of this article has passed. Watty62 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The nominator's extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors is not constructive. NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources... The escalating campaign is not taking us towards better coverage of diplomacy or anything else. Moonraker (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the huge number of your Afds aiming to delete coverage of ambassadors are all drive-by and all begin with the claim "Ambassadors are not inherently notable." Some standard replies are called for. Moonraker (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, as you appear to have unlimited time for pursuing the deletion of diplomatic articles, while others do not have the time to rescue them. But the massive scale and focus of your campaign ought to focus minds on whether there should be a presumption of notability, after all. Moonraker (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and I could find nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indwepth (ProQuest, Newspapers.com, JSTOR, Project Muse). Ping me if someone does find sources with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk02:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete without prejudice. I couldn't find any sources online other than a few lists that verify the existence of this person. It seems possible that offline sources exist given that this person is most notable for stuff that he did in the mid-20th century, so I wouldn't be opposed if someone recreated with proper sourcing. — SamX [talk·contribs] 02:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SamX: Old New Zealand newspapers can be searched at the PapersPast website. For the period 1950 to 1979 the only newspaper on the site currently is The Press. For North American newspapers, you can search Newspapers.com and NewspaperARCHIVE.com via The Wikipedia Library. The British Newspaper Archive is also available by application through The Wikipedia Library. Paora (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Per nom, subject lacks IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed promos and listings. // Timothy :: talk04:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirected all four albums by this artist because the coverage on page (AllMusic pages with no editorial coverage, an MTV.com bio which doesn't provide much info on any individual release, and nothing else reliable/primarily about the artist and his music) is not enough and I found nothing additional, plus the artist himself is also facing deletion and looks highly unlikely to survive. Those edits have been undone just now by Josefina213, but my opinion on the pages has not changed so I'm bringing them here now. QuietHere (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable albums by a non-notable rapper. I'm not sure what we're debating, there is no coverage for any of them, they've never charted or won a Grammy award. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This album has been covered by Fox News recently and all articles related to Serio will have the deletion tags removed. You are a very reckless editor and are on the line of vandalism to Rap Artist articles very unprofessional cyber bully. Josefina213 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The album is not covered by Fox News; that's false. The album is mentioned in connection with the arrest of another person in Mexico. The Fox News story is about another person altogether, Serio is mentioned in one line. That's not required coverage for notability; we need to see articles about the person, not name drops. I'd suggest you read the various notability requirements that have been pointed out to you over the course of these deletion debates. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. BEFORE showed nothing but listings, stats, BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. THis has none. This microstub article reflects the lack of SIGCOV. No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk04:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The fact it's an orphan and the inappropriate sources are a red flag to me. All other sources are Wikipedia mirrors or copypasted from Wikipedia, or podcasts and podcast forks which aren't particularly reliable either. Looks like another hoax. Pear 2.0(say hi!)22:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like I was wrong. The article appears to be 13 years, 11 months, 22 days old, making it more like the 15th oldest hoax. Not that this makes it any less of a hoax.Indefatigable2 talk01:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: It's one of the best known names in the local film production service industry, but I'm finding it hard to identify in-depth coverage beyond passing mentions. This conference paper (full proceedings) includes the following passages:
Living Films, De Warrenne Pictures, and Benetone Films are among Thailand‘s leading film production service companies. They have been involved in the majority of most expensive foreign films shot in Thailand.
Benetone Films (2016) provides film production and film production services, directors and cinematographers, and operates in Thailand and the U.S. Since 2003 the company has been involved in the making of more than 80 films, many of them Bollywood romance and action films, and 800 TV commercials. Indian films line produced by Benetone Films include Bombay to Bangkok (India 2008), Golmaal Returns (India 2008), Toonpur Ka Superhero (India 2010), and Ek Ta Tiger (India 2012). It also produced films such as A Stranger in Paradise (USA 2013), Pernicious (USA 2014), Ghost House (USA 2016), and several more.
There are small numbers of movie production companies in Thailand. The notable movie production companies are Benetone Films, Five Star Production, GDH 559, Kantana Group, Phranakorn Film, and Sahamongkol Film. BenetoneFilms is a creative film and TV production and production services company headquartered in Bangkok, with offices in the US, Europe, India, and Myanmar. It has been ranked the leading service provider in Thailand.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Production: Pernicious" (PDF). Film in Thailand. Thailand Film Office. A promotional flyer
"Thai Mafia Thriller A Stranger in Paradise, With Collin Egglesfield and Stuart Townsend, to Hit Theaters 2/14". No information about subject
"Screen Daily". MBI, Ltd. Promotional, interview quotes, about a film director not the subject. Not SIGCOV
"IMDB - Benetone Hillin Lines Up Oliver Storm". IMDB is not a source for notability
"Benetone Hillin lines up Oliver Storm". Promotional, press release type paragraph about a film director, not the subject. Not SIGCOV
None of the sources above are SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Before showed mentions in promotional material and film databases, nothing SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk04:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The analysis of arguments and rationales lead to a delete conclusion, per detailed analysis provided below of the sourcing. Courcelles (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be one of a number of drive-by nominations of British ambassadors. Coverage here is a little thin, but there is a nultiplicity of hits to news sources. The GNG is nothing to do with importance, so in theory an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role from journalists and academics it would be hard for one to achieve such obscurity, especially when it comes to diplomacy in Israel. And what may be "routine coverage" for an ambassador is at a higher level than for less notable roles. The GNG gives this helpful definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Moonraker, could you clarify your comments? Israel is mentioned nowhere in this debate, nor in the article under consideration. Thanks. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, I don't understand Israel either, it must be a typo. On the point about primary sources, there is no harm in them for facts, but as with any British ambassador there is a mass of sources available. I have just spent about twenty minutes finding and adding a few. In my humble opinion, we need a less negative attitude to a significant group of people, who are far more likely to prove to be notable than not. I would only propose the deletion of any article if I had looked for good reliable sources and not been able to find any. Moonraker (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what happened: there was another AfD for an ambassador to Israel, so this must have been a simple copy/paste error. No harm done. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: relisting in the light of the new sources added by Moonraker Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano19:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. No sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:
1. "Latest news". webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 1 September 2008. Retrieved 1 August 2017. Government archive website, no SIGCOV and fails IS.
2. ^ "Mr Tim Morris - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 1 August 2017. Government website, fails IS
3. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Africa Programme UK Heads of Mission Series 2016: Ambassador to South Sudan, Timothy Morris" in Africa Programme UK Heads of Mission Series 2016 (Chatham House, July 2016), p. 18 Promotional material for a conference fails IS RS
4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador South Sudan - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 1 August 2017. Government website, fails IS
5. ^ The Diplomatic Service List (1994), p. 258 Government website, fails IS
6. ^ "Mauretania" in Dod's Parliamentary Companion (2009), p. 1159 Listing with brief biography, contains all member of the civil service, is not a source for notability, no SIGCOV
7. ^ "April 2011", Royal web site, accessed 6 March 2023 Government website, fails IS
8. ^ "Peace now, “shape of country” later – UK", Eye Radio, 28 January 2016, accessed 6 March 2023 Interview, fails IS RS.
9. ^ "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to South Sudan: Alison Blackburne". GOV.UK. Retrieved 16 January 2021. Government website, fails IS
10. ^ "Morris, Timothy Colin, (born 17 Sept. 1958), HM Diplomatic Service, retired; Director, Tim Morris Consulting Ltd, since 2018", Who's Who, doi.org, 1 December 2022, accessed 6 March 2023 (subscription required) Who's Who listing is not a source for notability
Keep votes above have shown no refs with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV (ProQuest, JSTOR).
BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk05:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I'd like to point out this list was created by a user named User:RandomGuy2018, who was blocked last year for sockpuppetry. Truly hilarious; a guy creating a random username with "random guy" in it (in order to circumvent a block) creating a list of random guys with a random name. It could hardly be more WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete obviously fails GNG. Bedivere (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC) On a second look the article was vandalized and this actually referred to soccer player Benji Lopez. It should be renamed to Benji Lopez and ask nominator to reconsider this nomination, and have it closed as Rename and Restore. @Joeykai:Bedivere (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Apparently after an unsuccessful club football career, he found some success in beach soccer. However, I don't see enough online coverage to suggest WP:GNG is met. Most of the hits relate to the Guatemalan international footballer Néstor Martínez. Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. Seems like a very minor political party that stood a small number of candidates then folded JMWt (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe we should keep it there are many minor parties in wikipedia i will gladly add the election result but the article is a bit bare bones it would help if we could get some more info about it User:Friendlyhistorian — Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 12 March 2023 (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.
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.
Draft:Rockstar Nino already exists so not able to draftify. WP:AUTOBIO on a subject that comprehensively fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO according to my own searches. Only his own social media accounts are coming up, no independent news media or professional reviews or national charts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)18:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find significant coverage of this artist, so the artist appears to fail WP:NBASIC. Looking at the various criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, he doesn't appear to pass any of them, so I think that this article should be deleted as having a non-notable article subject. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. I wasn't sure what I was expecting to find, but other than blogs and adverts going back many years, I'm not finding anything significant. Nothing that looks like a RS which meets the GNG to me. JMWt (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also if anyone can decipher what happened at the first AfD, I'd be curious to know. I assume it was a !keep but it isn't clear. JMWt (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just in my looking for sources, it seems like a really poor case for satisfying notability policy, so I'm leaning delete unless there are a few additional sources out there. All the sources are pretty much that the product simply exists and is sold (from vendor websites) with little to no actual secondary independent sources on it. The only source that seems to scrape slightly above the bottom of the can is from cats.com Pretty meh, but if there are other reliable sources that talk about semi-moist cat food like this product, then it may just be worth a redirect to Cat_food#Commercial_foods with a new section on semi-moist food. It seems hard to reach the point of sourced notability here though. KoA (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like basically a passing mention; I can see it here on Internet Archive. Tender Vittles are actually mentioned (in passing) in a ton of articles on Google Scholar, because it serves as a useful example of a descriptive trademark. There's discussion of a related court-case in a few places e.g. see ref.[1] I suspect better sources exist given the prominence of the brand, although they may not be online. I would expect more discussion of the brand in marketing/brand/law books by academics. Suriname0 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the press release.[2] I can't see any evidence the relaunch was actually reported on at the time i.e. in 2011. Small press blurbs about the discontinuation.[3] Still not seeing anything that looks like WP:SIGCOV. Suriname0 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promising: another source[4] lists marketing articles from 1977, and provides the following citation and note: Top Promotions, Fall, 1976: How Nestle Got a Head Start in a Burgeoning Category. Curt Schleier, Product Marketing, February 1977, pp. 33-36. [Hendon] 77-468. "Most of the article discusses Nestle's cookie mix, while space is also given to Purina Tender Vittles cat food (best packaging)." I wasn't able to find an online copy of the source, but it could very well have significant coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^Schloss, Daniel I. (1996). "Marks of Distinction: Rethinking Secondary Meaning Standards in Trademark Law after Qualitex v. Jacobson". Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. 14: 695. In Ralston Purina Co. v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., Purina sought an injunction against Lipton's use of "Tender Dinners" as a mark for cat food, claiming that its own "Tender Vittles" mark had acquired secondary meaning by virtue of Purina's substantial advertising expenditures and the results of two surveys.
^Solnik, Claude (2017-08-04). "Comeback kings | Long Island Business News". Retrieved 2023-03-17. While sometimes brands simply run their course, others are discontinued after a problem, even if their good will remains. Tender Vittles, for instance, was pulled after a manufacturing problem long forgotten by many led to bad publicity.
Delete. Just because it exists does not mean needs an article. As it fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, what article it does have should be deleted. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentions and promos are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the sources in the article are SIGCOV from IS RS, none of the sources mentioned above are more than mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Evidnece of existence is not enough to merit an article. No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk05:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:TimothyBlue, can I take it from your comment that you were able to access a print or digital copy of "How Nestle Got a Head Start in a Burgeoning Category" (1977) article mentioned above? If so, would you mind describing or quoting the relevant contents for the purpose of this discussion? Suriname0 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the commonality of the name makes searches difficult, but I can't find any in-depth coverage about this product. I was surprised, as I thought it would be an easy keep. I actually used to see this in the cat food aisle back in the day when I had cats. No prejudice to recreation if in-depth sourcing can be found.Onel5969TT me20:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She is currently married to a Croatian football player Mihael Mikić - apart from fame thank to the footballer what is her independent notability? Article is described based on weak sources. Should be much corrected or deleted if no reliable sources will be find. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Rivera is the wife of the retired footballer Mark González. - apart from fame thank to the footballer, what is her independet notablity? Article is desribed based on weak souces. Should be muuch corrected or delted if in next days no more reliable sources will be find. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Her first marriage was to Israeli Premier League footballer Asi Domb between the years 2004 and 2006. Apart from fame thank to the footballer what is her idependet notabliy? Article is described baed on weak sources. Should be much correctde or delted if no reliable sources will be find. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apart from her fame related to her relationship with Goran Vlaović (football player) what is her independet notablity? Article should be much corrected or delted if no more reliable sources will be find. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She dated Galatasaray S.K.'s former defender and Turkish international Vedat İnceefe over three years[1] and Beşiktaş J.K. defender İbrahim Toraman.[2] - apart from fame related to her relationships with fotball players what is her independet notablity? Article should be much corrected or delted if no more reliable sources will be find. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I am no position to comment on the domestic Turkish TV/Film/Music industry, the Filmography section of her entry seems to be a straight copy/paste of her IMDB entry, and her albums are streamable on major platforms. This should get her to notability even without her modelling career. Her lovelife isn't relevant to her notability. Page is low-grade and needs help, but is tagged as a stub MNewnham (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She is married to footballer Nashat Akram, who played for the Al-Shorta Sports Club where her father Ayad Bunyan was the club president. - apart from fame related to her relationship with football player, what is her independet notablity? Article should be much corrected (based on reliable sources) or delted if it is not possible. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 90 seconds of research would have shown that this person is an author and opinion writer including an opinion piece published in the NYT. This nomination (one in a string today), feels malicious. MNewnham (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She has been in a relationship with footballer Ezequiel Garay since 2010. - apart from that what is her independet notablity? Article should be much corrected or delted if no more reliable sources will be find. Article should be corrected or delte if no more relible sources will be find. Being member of Mujeres y Hombres y Viceversa, some Trajectory and published works is not enough for current standards of Wikipedia, IMHO. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She married footballer Andrea Bertolacci on 23 December 2015 - It is the only sourced info in the article so this speak for itself that form is not acceptable for Wikipedia. The article should be delted or much correcte if there are any sources which could defend her independet notablity. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She got engaged to footballer Mattia Destro. - Apart from relationship with famous footballer what is her independet notablity? Article shoudl be delted or much corrected based on reliable sources which can defend independet notablity. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per notablity tag. Article is not desribed based on reliable sources. Person is not independly notable, even for all categories there are no sources. Let wait until someone will find reliable sources or delte that if will not be corrected. I suggest to bit review this article, according to the content she is amarried to famous tennis player Marcelo Ríos but is in category [[Association footballers' wives and girlfriends Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Article is poorly sourced, otherwise plenty of citations exist in Chilean publications and she seems to be a celebrity in her own country. I have added a few new citations. Pershkoviski (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I could not get the archived citations to article in "La Nación" to work. But I had no difficulty in finding vast numbers of reliable independent sources about María Eugenia Larraín by clicking on the Google news* link above. Deleting articles is not meant to be a process for article clean up.-- Toddy1(talk)19:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per Das osmenezz. An established figure in Australian Soccer Journalism. This nomination (one in a string today), feels malicious MNewnham (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Clearly established and documented notability in Italy. This nomination (one of dozens today of notable women with connections to professional soccer players) feels malicious. MNewnham (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The article is poorly written but there are literally hundreds of high quality glamour and fashion photos of this woman online. This nomination (one of many today of women associated with professional soccer players) feels malicious. MNewnham (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have ambivalent thoughts when report that article for deletion. She is national titleholer as miss universe of Ghana but on the other hand there is template at the article (not added bey me) that article should be improved and yet her fame is significantly overrated due to relationship with Sulley Muntari who is globally famous. Let carefully discuss that. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Withdrawn by nominator After reading more aout subject, it itisreally evidenced she can be more notable than her husband. I made nomination with mistake and I am sorry for that. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, part of a disruptive mass nom, 33 AfD in 3 minutes probably created via BOT, no authors notified, copy-pasting the same inaccurate rationale everywhere, obviously no WP:BEFORE and in many cases (like this one) the subjects were notable before their engagement to footballers and are more notable than their counterparts. Cavarrone08:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Clearly established notability already documented in Wikipedia. This nomination (one of dozens today of notable women by the same contributor) feels malicious MNewnham (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What do you mean by "independent notability"? She's an actress. That's her claim to notability. And the sources in the article are fine, which include NTV, Takvim, Sözcü, and Hürriyet. You obviously did not look any of them up as you have nominated 25 articles on different women for deletion in one day and it's not possible to do that with proper research on each subject. Keivan.fTalk01:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, No, she famous because of her many roles as a TV host. Lots of interviews if someone wants to update the article (she is also known as Ibi Støvring) Christian75 (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She is famous because of relationship with footballer Guti. Apart from that what is her independet notablity? For now article is quite poorly sourced. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Clearly established notability already documented in Wikipedia. This nomination (one of dozens today of notable women associated with professional soccer players by the same contributor) feels malicious MNewnham (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Withdrawn by nominator I have made mistake by nominating that article. She is notable and even first sentence Palmas was born in Cagliari. She began her career in the year 2000, coming second in Miss World, losing to Miss India, Priyanka Chopra. even talk much about it. I wrongly assumed she can be less notable than her husband. I made mistake that I more read article about Davide Bombardini than her and I have been bit misleaded by { { BLP sources } } tag which was not added be me. I am sorry for that. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly established notability already established and documented in Wikipedia. This nomination (one of dozens today of notable women associated with professional soccer players by the same contributor) feels malicious MNewnham (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, part of a disruptive mass nom, 33 AfD in 3 minutes probably created via BOT, no authors notified, copy-pasting the same inaccurate rationale everywhere, obviously no WP:BEFORE and in many cases the subjects were notable before their engagement to footballers and are more notable than their counterparts. Cavarrone08:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Withdrawn by nominator Since Jimena Barón received many significant awards at music industry, it does not augur well for the encyclopedia to have her page plastered with the deletion discussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly established notability already established and documented in Wikipedia. This nomination (one of dozens today of notable women associated with professional soccer players by the same contributor) feels malicious MNewnham (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with all above. The nominator has glanced over dozens of articles on footballers' wives and copy-pasted AfD nominations within time windows of minutes, not doing proper reevaluation of existent nor research of new sources to be added to establish WP:GNG, relying on WP:NOTINHERITED. Selective cleanup + nonadequate pre-AfD conduct + mass AfD-ing that creates a lot of research and improvement work that they expect others to do. Edit: Also per @User:Cavarrone in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgia Palmas - the closing admin should consider speedy keep of all articles in this series of AfDs for these reasons. –Vipz (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Clearly established notability already established and documented in Wikipedia. This nomination (one of dozens today of notable women associated with professional soccer players by the same contributor) feels malicious MNewnham (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make it a rule that any married woman should be included in her husband's article, rather than have one of her own? I mean, it is impossible for a woman to be notable herself, isn't it? If I was feeling pointy I would nominate Vujadin Savić for deletion on the basis that he is only notable for having Mirka Vasiljević as a partner. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The Article has 20 references but most of them are not very reliable and there is template that article is not described neutrally. Beyond that this person is also famous because of relationship with milionaire footballer Edgar Davids. Let discuss carefully wheter she meets general guideline for bios' notablity or not. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The dutch-language version has more than enough reliable sources. She is notable in her own right, for various reasons, most evidently because she is a television presentator.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of notability per WP:NMUSIC. I don't see any significant coverage of the musician; all the coverage, at least in reliable sources, is about his death. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he has a clip with 45 million views on Youtube and did a collab with Akon. Makes him more notable than 90% of bio entries on this site I guess. Synotia (moan) 17:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steams can be bought so aren't reliable, nor any sort of notability criteria here. They aren't audited like newspaper circulation or radio airplay is. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Be realistic…. The article gives 2 generic sentences for his “biography”. There’s only one reliable source in this entire article, Washington Post, that gave no information about his career in his lifetime, only that he died onstage and they posted a social media link of a video. They didn’t mention any notable songs, anything. They only reported on the speculative manner of his death, the cause of which has not yet been confirmed. Notability for a musician on Wikipedia has requirements and unfortunately the subject did not meet them. His collaboration with Akon did not reach any certifications such as gold or platinum nor did it chart. The song itself doesn’t even have an article. Trillfendi (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment This bias is really strong and I don't see it going on for long. An alternative platform shall come up to address these kinds of biases.
Costa Titch is mentioned all over the net just by searching his name. I still don't understand how famous you have to be to qualify for a page in Wikipedia. I remember being in a similar deletion discussion of Kevin Samuels page till finally it was added. Same argument that @Trillfendi is making. You really don't have to have a collabo with Akon or be certified Platinum to deserve a page on wikipedia when millions of South Africans know your name. Sbliecer (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without taking sides, I'd like to point out this is the English Wikipedia. When pages about non-English singers are created, they need to be well sourced enough and notable enough to be on the site, because otherwise we don't know how notable they really are. Race To Oblivion (ネザーへのハイウェイ) (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to take the information here to another platform, in fact, it's encouraged that you share it, that's what wikipedia's licensing allows! Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I go based on the evidence right there, not so-called bias of subjects that none of us even know personally. Kevin Samuels, famous for overt misogyny in his lifetime, was also on notable television shows and music videos as himself. So that had to have indicated notability on his part to reach mainstream audiences in the media. It’s ironic that Samuels only received reliable sources when he died, but in his lifetime he became notable as whatever cultural commentator he perceived himself to be. That said, Sbliecer, it doesn’t matter if millions know your name if you can’t get reliable sources to verify the criteria of notability on Wikipedia. In my opinion, unfortunately, Titch’s death only creates WP:ONEEVENT. Sources only covering him for the manner of his death rather than his career and they’ll stop talking about it by the end of the month. Trillfendi (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point. I respect your opinion but I still beg to differ. No way an artist is one of the most nominated for a continental event in January 2023 and dies in March 2023 and that is classified as one event. See this LinkSbliecer (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm neutral on this nom for now, but I do agree that something has gone wrong, particularly on AFD, and it seems like well-known South African WP:RS are systematically disregarded despite WP:WORLDWIDE existing. I can't see this lasting much longer either: perhaps the WP:GNG criteria should include "of interest to readers, or generally known, in the Core Anglosphere". South Africa is in a weird position: it's de facto a large, English-speaking country. It's always been a bit isolated, first because of apartheid, now because of demographic differences. Popular culture, politics, education and the media are dominated by the English language, but as the white English-speaking population ages, emigrates or assimilates (see the subject of this nom), popular English South African culture could diverge even more from mainstream Anglosphere culture. Or maybe black South African English culture is becoming more prominent? Perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for content from a country like that, and the time has come for clearer content guidelines, and to admit that a truly worldwide, English encyclopedia isn't really possible. South African editors aren't blameless here, and they don't participate in AFDs and edit regularly. I think the situation is analogous to what's happened with IMDB, where Indian movies made it into the Top 250, pushing out western movies (although Wikipedia has unlimited space so the analogy isn't perfect).[26]. Park3r (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. I urge the OP to withdraw the request, which is borderline vandalism given the story of his passing is trending. Brmull (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. Does not satisfy NMUSIC because does not satisfy any of the numbered criteria. You may ask for an opinion at the Music WikiProject as to whether the nominations are sufficient basis for notability. Does not satisfy gneral notability because the article does not speak for itself and does not provide third-party covrage of his career. The Heymann criterion would be to provide third-party coverage within six days, or to obtain an opinion that the nominations for awards confer notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the point about the article needing to speak for itself. Given the state the article was in at the time of nomination, I had seriously considered whether CSD A7 applied. I ultimately decided it didn't, but that a deletion discussion was in order. Also, given the other attempts at article creation from the original editor, this is the first article that's had any sticking power in mainspace. When there's been a stream of non-notable article attempts, it can be hard to recognize when one comes along that might have merit. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has multiple music nominations and a collaboration with Akon, even if it didn't blow up. Some sources about his career rather than his death have been added too by some users. --Brunnaiz (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I used Google advanced search date filtering to look for coverage up to 2022 to get away from the noise around his death. He received coverage in 2020 from at least two different mainstream websites associated with WP:RS, discussing accusations of cultural appropriation that seem to have resulted in discussion and controversy. [27][28]. Also found some other coverage in SA Hip Hop Magazine, but haven't been able to evaluate the source: [29]. Also coverage from GQ about releasing an album with AKA [30]. He also received coverage in Tanzania for a concert, in what appears to be a mainstream daily English newspaper [31]. Personally, I feel he is an interesting example of of post-apartheid cultural appropriation vs assimilation amongst white South Africans (see especially the Times Live article) and that can be covered in the article. Meets WP:GNG. Park3r (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Park3r Thank you for your deep dive into sources. The article has already been expanded with mention of the awards—which were not in the article at the time of nomination. It sounds like the cultural appropriation accusations could make for article material as well. I find myself thinking that the worst that should happen to the article is to send it to draft space for incubation, rather than to delete it outright—and even that may not be necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of draftifying articles, especially since there's already a dearth of editors on SA topics and we need to encourage them wherever possible and a mainspace article is more likely to do that, and also because WP:NOTCLEANUP. Maybe consider withdrawing your nom? Park3r (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been following this debate as new info about the rapper slowly trickled in, and at first I was undecided on the WP:ONEEVENT question. It is obvious that most of the rapper's media coverage is about his death a few days ago, though it was described in a robust article in the reliable Rolling Stone ([32]), and that and similar articles took the opportunity to catch up on belated coverage of his previous popularity in South Africa. The article here needed to be cleaned up to focus on the right things, and the community is working on it thanks to the trends in this AfD debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unable to find ORG level sourcing for this convention. It's listed on a handful of event sites and gaming lists, but nothing in depth. I don't think a mention at Michigan would be helpful as it's no longer affiliated there and wouldn't be DUE. StarMississippi16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two refs in article are primary promotional. A small gaming con that has not attracted any Independent media attention. There are a few hits on websites but they are promotional and blogs. Nothing above shows IS RS SIGCOV. I didn't check wayback machine, I don't think it would show anything different. It sounds like a good group, but without SIGCOV from IS RS, the article should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk06:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This virtually content-free single-sourced stub has been redirected and re-created a number of times, the author contending that it goes beyond a WP:DICDEF (which in my view it most certainly does not) and should not be a redirect to Consensual tickling. In a two-paragraph article, we are told "It seems to be a relatively common interest on the internet", which is about as WP:OR as you'll get, and "The total number of people who have knismolagnia is unknown and there aren't very many straightforward estimates." which equally adds zilch to the sum total of human knowledge. The image was apparently uploaded under a CC license, but there appears to be little evidence of that. In total, we have an article that lacks the stuff of WP:GNG, that should at best be a redirect but which its author, in its current iteration, does not accept should be a redirect. Delete and include mention of the term under Consensual tickling, redirect to Consensual tickling or any suggestion of a better redirect target gratefully received. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason for standalone page for a Greek-derived term of something that is already covered elsewhere. The title of this article should be included in Consensual tickling (which it is) and that's as much as can be salvaged from here, since everything else is repetition. Ppt91talk18:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: Our Wiktionary article on this states: "Mainly encountered in word lists rather than actual use," which tracks with what I've found. The author is at best a WP:SPA. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. After all this discussion, I find the consensus is that the sources presented are not sufficient evidence of significant coverage to justify a BLP. Courcelles (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has been covered personally by a widespread Indian news source, as well as in CNN, per the references in the article. BhamBoi (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HISTORY[33] and Doordarshan[34] pages exist that are specifically about him. Also another article specifically about him is here. I also think he may be notable for this award. Clear SIGCOV in multiple sources, and I think he could have cut it even without these additional sources as being profiled by CNN and other Indian national sources is pretty notable. BhamBoi (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the claimed the degrees, the subject does not seem to have even one article with a meager 10 citations, giving them an h10 index of... 0. Jeppiz (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The press coverage barely rises to silly season status, with mediocre websites copying each other. Self-published self-help books aren't a reliable basis for an encyclopedia article, either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to perpetual student as alternative to deletion. I think that the relevant guideline here may be WP:BLP1E, as while there is some coverage that appears at first to meet GNG, all the news coverage appears to be essentially the same (junky, human interest) story. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no coverage of the individual. Claiming to have 140 + degrees and proof in RS that he does have them are two different things; nothing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
the article is about a well-known Nigeria blogger. That has also worked with some notable musicians like Olamide, Zlatan, Rexxie, Davido There are relevant Google search results. The article can be improved through regular editing, rather than deletion. here are some links i found about him.
Delete - I moved the article to Draft when it clearly had insufficient sources to meet the criteria for notability. The article creator and principle editor moved it back to mainspace without review and without significantly improving the sourcing. Association with other acts is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. I see no significant improvement since I moved it to Draft. Fails WP:GNG. VelellaVelella Talk 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, yes I did move it back to the main space after working on the said article for months and improving the source. I looked for sources before re-editing and moving back to the main space. and rather did I say —Association with other acts is relevant. I only mentioned that because of some search results, I pulled up from google search. Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Epcc12345You are aware that just because a magazine writes a PR article for one story doesn't mean they do it for all of them. t. Half of these sources" are unreliable?
I'll admit and that I've never heard of glam squad magazine reason i didnt include that in my article, but those sources make up a very small portion of the ones I listed. You are clearly aware that the majority of my sources weren't "republished press releases." Pls explain to me how this looks like a PR Work ? [44] @Epcc12345
him being declared as a Blogger, who helps Discovering Superstars by a Well know Nigeria Media House Plus, personality, who acknowledged having an opinion about this blogger, and it was written by a member of the source's staff. is WP:SIGCOVBeckyrose233 (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Founding a non-notable blog, releasing three non-notable singles, and getting arrested by the EFCC (due to his affliation with Zlatan and Naira Marley) are not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. The subject doesn't have a music career to speak of, and being Zlatan's personal blogger isn't going to make him notable. Versace1608Wanna Talk?23:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am still with the fact that He is widely covered in many of the sources I provided, the sources are independent. You haven't provided evidence they're not. You're flat out and getting arrested by the EFCC (due to his affliation with Zlatan and Naira Marley) at this point. Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they simply briefly referenced the blogger, his name wouldn't be in the title of the majority of these sources. and more over have come across articles of wrestler, boxers, footballers, Comedian etc. having one or two songs and articles still describe them as musicians, simply because they have their song on Popular streaming platforms. being Zlatan's personal blogger isn't going to make him notable.
a notable Nigerian rapper and singer who has admitted to having a song with this blogger, by a staff writer (Bylined) from a well reliable source in Nigeria. Vanguard. They wouldn't want to talk about the blogger or with him if nobody cared about him. Beckyrose233 (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have worked in the sphere of Nigerian music articles for a bit, and I find it troubling that so many users would write off coverage found in the most prominent news sites of the country. If you don't think his achievements are that impressive, that is fine. But we don't decide to have pages based on how impressive a person seems. We base it on the existence of sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Why? I Ask: Who exactly is your comment addressed to? Who voted to delete the article based on impression? The subject lacks in-depth coverage and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Show me a criterion of MUSICBIO, WP:JOURNALIST, or WP:GNG he meets and I will change my vote. He doesn't have a music career to speak of and simply being arrested isn't enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Moreover, running a non-notable blog doesn't establish him as a notable act. Versace1608Wanna Talk?22:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. He has profiles in The Guardian[45], Vanguard News[46], and The Sun[47] (among others). These are some of the largest newspapers in Nigeria and are considered reliable sources per WP:NG/RS. Clearly he does have a career to speak of if he has received national coverage in multiple sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608funny how you also are trying to write off the fact that he is also signed to a well notable Major Record label in Nigeria (Zanku Records) also been mentioned here This Day1 by one of Ghanaian top blogger and Audiomack Africa Ambassador and curator, do you think they would want to mention his name as "(Nigerian top blogger in Zanku Records)" if he wasn't notable in the country. pls stop trying to writeoff the fact that he also actually does have a career as a blogger also. this is from reliable sources vanguard News[1] and clearly not PR job.Beckyrose233 (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need a more convincing delete argument. Please see my above comment. Bylined articles in five national newspapers is clearly a good amount of sourcing, and your assertion that the articles are puffery is completely unjustified (and dead wrong). Why? I Ask (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am clearly aware that paid sources are a problem in journalism/entertainment media across all subjects, kindly offer proof that the sources I listed were paid sources. @Oaktree b and pls don't tell me that articles from well-respected national newspapers independent sources are "self-promotion." with no proper evidence that they are. Beckyrose233 (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
stop lying that they are. You haven't provided evidence. because you are clearly writing off these national newspapers and completely writing off the Nigeria list of notable reliable sources per WP:NG/RS. with no proper evidence or claim to back your accusation. just because these media houses do PR articles for some articles doesn't mean they do it for all. Beckyrose233 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slight paraphrasing, but ends "Considering his affiliations in the music industry and his open communication with other top bloggers, the world is indeed yet to discover this young, high-achieving individual."
has byline - Anazia Daniel - a freelance journalist. Ends with "With his rapport with fellow top bloggers and established connections in the music industry..."
has byline - Onaolapo Olalekan Odunola, but not a journalist. Ends with "With his rapport with fellow top bloggers and established connections in the music industry..."
byline is Ada Ada, presumably Ihesiulo Amarachi Ada Ada, an SEO expert. Ends with "With his rapport with fellow top bloggers and established connections in the music industry..."
Byline indicates written by the subject; ends with "With his rapport with fellow top bloggers and established connections in the music industry..."; says 'Sponsored' underneath
no reason to question this article as it is so short
Two sentences; announcement of song
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
I don't understand much of what you wrote, or the relevance of the articles you linked to.
What my analysis shows is that:
Onaolapo Olalekan Odunola, writing for Vanguard on 12 January 2020, wrote "At 27, Adewumi Adeyanju otherwise known as Biesloaded has carved a niche for himself in the entertainment scene as “blogger blogger”. With his rapport with fellow top bloggers and established connections in the music industry, the sky is the starting point for this young, hardworking entrepreneur."
Ada Ada, writing for the Daily Times on 16 January 2020, wrote "At 27, Adewumi Adeyanju otherwise known as Biesloaded has carved a niche for himself in the entertainment scene as “blogger blogger”. With his rapport with fellow top bloggers and established connections in the music industry, the sky is the starting point for this young, hardworking entrepreneur."
Daniel Anazia, writing for The Guardian on 2 May 2020, wrote "With his rapport with fellow top bloggers and established connections in the music industry."
ThisDay, on 10 May 2020 wrote "At 27, Adewumi Adeyanju otherwise known as Biesloaded has carved a niche for himself in the entertainment scene as “blogger blogger”. With his rapport with fellow top bloggers and established connections in the music industry, the sky is the starting point for this young, hardworking entrepreneur."
On 11 December 2021 The Sun wrote: "At age 27, Adewumi has built up a reputation in the entertainment industry as a “blogger.” Considering his affiliations in the music industry and his open communication with other top bloggers, the world is indeed yet to discover this young, high-achieving individual."
Five newspapers have run articles using the same or paraphrased text. My plagiarism detector shows the Vanguard article is a 81.4% match to the The Guardian article. These are not independently written. So who wrote them? My assertion is that the text was provided by a PR agency. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beside i also made use of plagiarism copyvo detector which clearly showed that not all 77% of the source shows any similarity or Violation Unlikely .
Bylined articles in five national newspapers is clearly a good amount of sourcing
Adewumi Adeyanju, better known as Biesloaded, is an entertainment celebrity blogger who was awarded the prestigious Digital Media Blogger title in Lagos 2021. thenationonlineng
Celebrity blogger Adewumi Adeyanju (Biesloaded) praises Davido as super talented and inspiring dailytimesng.com
That's probably just the blurb from his own biography that newspapers use. I don't think it should be any sort of disqualifier as the newspapers still independently covered him. I also believe you are mistaken with Ada Ada, who is a reporter alongside a SEO. Most newspapers (even the New York Times) have SEO specialists to try and boost clicks on articles. It does not mean the articles themselves are an issue.
But trying to find secondary analysis in Nigerian news is nigh impossible. That's just the current nature of Nigerian news coverage of the arts. In an effort to avoid systemic bias, I don't think analysis should be a requirement as opposed to just coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary coverage is available, but analysis is rare. Even looking through Nigerian musicians or bloggers, you find the exact same type of sources without any analysis on pretty much every page (especially for the latter). This type of attitude is also why sixth largest country in the world has a musician list smaller than something like Australia. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere are several trustworthy sources (more than one). judging from your so-called evidence that means so many articles here List of Nigerian bloggers.List of Nigerian entrepreneurs also fails WP:ANYBIOWP:NG/RS which is clearly unacceptable, I have been editing Wikipedia for years also have contributed to hundreds of wiki project as well as created some page for some top Canadian actors and singer not only Canadian. before i misplaced my laptop and had to start all over again i have come across articles from other countries with less than 5 reliable sources been deemed notable. Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Most of the sources listed seems to be reliable according to Nigerian Sources. The article still needs more sources for verification. The BLP sources tag should help with the article improvement in mainspace. Wikispendo (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Was deprodded without improvement, then after a week with no improvement, was sent to draft in hopes of improving the article, but was immediately returned to mainspace, again, without improvement. Currently it does not have enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet notability. And searches did not turn up enough. See the source assessment table below (not sure why, but in the preview, source #11 does not show up, it is the best of the sourcing, and meets the criteria towards notability. It is for both footnote #11 and #12):
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is simply a mirror of Pawar and adds nothing. It's just created by someone with unreliable sources, which lacks Historical Scholarship. The merging tag is already there, but i don't think that it will add something to another article. Going by its history, i can see that someone created it in Hindi language and latter addition were done to keep it alive. Admantine123 (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As discussed in talk page, the majority of those mentioned here are rumors and unable to be confirmed, particularly with the nature of all information regarding North Korea. Examples include Kim Chol, Jang Song-thaek (whose execution was confirmed, but for which sources dispute whether it could be considered a purge), Jon Yong-jin for whom sources state "allegedly executed," Ri Yong-ho (diplomat) was also "likely executed," etc etc. As well, many of these references link back to anonymous sources from Chojoongdong, sources which have been known to get things wrong in the past and I don't think its helpful to have an article on "List of officials allegedly purged and executed by Kim Jong-un." Pinging @KTo288, Jack Upland, and Nathan868: who have participated before. Freedom4U (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST, which notes that one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. And, the topic of people executed on the order of Kim Jong-un has been discussed as a set by multiple independent reliable sources. These include USA Today, Radio Free Asia, CNN, and this analysis of purges of high-ranking officials in North Korea. If there are issues with content, WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, and I think the answer here is to simply improve the page's quality rather than deleting it. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)23:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jack Upland, WP:GNG does not matter when the verifiability of pretty much all of the list comes into question, a lot of the sourcing comes from clearly biased/agendaic sources with dubious reliability, with much of the info seeming to be WP:BOLLOCKS. Arkansore (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's go through the people listed one by one:
Kim Chol is cited to [48]. The source states A high-ranking army official in North Korea wasreportedlyexecuted by a firing squad earlier this year for drinking alcohol during the 100-day mourning period following the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il,according to South Korean media. and The Telegraph UK, however, citedan unnamed South Korean media sourceas saying that Kim Chol was "forced to stand on a spot that had been zeroed in for a mortar round and 'obliterated.'" North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un allegedly ordered to leave "no trace of him behind, down to his hair." and Some media outlets have questioned the report of Kim Chol's death.Commenting on the case, an analyst told Foreign Policy that there have been earlier reports of officers who were rumored to have been killed resurfacing later.The article reflects this information, using the words 'allegedly' and 'unconfirmed if dead'.
Ri Yong-hol and Ri Kwang-won are cited to [49] which states Those that have fallen from favour include Ri Yong-ho, the head of the army and Ri Kwang-gon, the governor of the North Korean central bank. While the Ri Kwang-won doesn't have his own article, Ri Yong-hol does, in which the sources all converge on this source [50] which states The South Korean government is investigatingunconfirmed intelligence reportsthat a gun battle, leaving between 20 and 30 soldiers dead, broke out when the North Korean regime removed army chief Ri Yong-ho from office.
Jang Song-thaek is verifiable. No issues found.
Ri Ryong-ha and Jang Su-gil are cited to [51] which states The Yomiuricited a source that claimedRi Ryong-ha, the first deputy director of the administrative department of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, and Jang Su-gil, a deputy director of the department, were executed because they did not immediately follow an order by Kim to hand over their control of a profitable business to the military.
Jon Yong-jin is cited to [52] which states Among thoseallegedlyexecuted were Jon Yong-jin, Jang's brother-in-law and the country's ambassador to Cuba, and Jang Yong-chol, Jang's nephew and ambassador to Malaysia,the anonymous sources said.
O Sang-hon is cited to [53] which states O Sang-hon, a deputy minister at the Ministry of Public Security was "executed by flame-thrower,"a source told South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper. and [54] which states O Sang-hon, a deputy minister at the Ministry of Public Security, was "executed by flamethrower,"the source said.
Pak Chun-hong is cited to a dead url, however his page cites [55] which states Citing a “number of inside sources,”the report carried by Yomiuri Shimbunclaimedthat the list of 16 of Jang’s closest associates included high-ranking cadres Ri Ryong Ha and Jang Su Gil,who are said to have beenexecuted in November, and Party Central Committee officials Pak Chun Hong and Ryang Chong Song...The report has not been independently verified.
Choe Yong-gon is cited to [56] which states South Korea's government says it ismonitoring reportsthat North Korea's vice-premier Choe Yong-gon was killed in May on the orders of Kim Jong-un. Mr Choe was executed after he "expressed discomfort against the young leader's forestation policy", South Korea's Yonhap news agency reports. The link to the Yonhap report is dead, but there is this source in his article[57] which states Yet the purge and execution of an official like Choe doesn’t strain credulity, either, even if it deserves to be filed under “unconfirmed” for now.
Hwang Min and Ri Yong-jin are cited to [58] which states The conservative daily, the JoongAng Ilbo, reported on Tuesday that Hwang Min, a former agriculture minister, and Ri Yong-jin, a senior official at the education ministry, were executed by anti-aircraft gun at a military academy in Pyongyang earlier this month. Hwang wasreportedlykilled for making policy proposals that were seen as a direct threat to Kim’s leadership.However, this is contradicted by this report [59] in The Diplomat which states In keeping with the usual pattern of unverifiable reports about the regime from South Korean media and intelligence services, the newspaper cited a single anonymous source for its claim...On Thursday, the JoongAng Ilbo reported that the ministry’s statement, pegging Kim as the only victim of the latest execution, had been made as a correction of its earlier reporting, which was erroneous...The JoongAng report actually misidentifies Hwang Min as being replaced in June at the Supreme People’s Assembly as agriculture minister.
Ri Yong-ho is cited to [60] which states Former North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-hoappears to havebeen executed last year, a Japanese newspaper reported Wednesday. Riseems to have beenexecuted around between the summer and fall of last year, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported,citing unnamed multiple sources. This information is uncertainty is reflected in his article.
Pinging @Necrothesp and @Redtail Vineyard. In addition, it's true that USA Today, Radio Free Asia, and CNN are considered generally reliable. However they are not considered generally reliable on topics concerning North Korea. See this 2022 RfC on Daily NK for previous consensus on this. Hell, the USA Today article that you linked reports that Kim Kyong-hui was executed, even though that was confirmed to be false. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk Oh shit sorry just realized I pinged the wrong person before North Korea is special here because the only information we're able to get about the country is very very limited, meaning that even major news sources have to work with very limited, often incorrect sources. If you were to read what it states at WP:GREL, you would find the following statement: There is a consensus that this source, as well as all other sources reporting on North Korea, is generally unreliable. However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution. :3 F4U (they/it) 10:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna add on to my comment to state, while looking through the list just now, I've found that Hwang Min and Ri Yong-jin were not executed and the JoongAng Daily retracted their report,[2] but that wasn't before Reuters [61], USA Today [62], The Independent [63], etc. etc. which are all normally generally reliable sources. I've removed those immediately from the list as they were confirmed to not have happened. :3 F4U (they/it) 11:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article creator and NPP reviewers can’t agree on whether notability is demonstrated for this Pakistani band, so bringing to AfD for consensus. Personally I think it is borderline at best. Mccapra (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Insight 3, Geo TV: interview counts as primary. Youlin Magazine: Not reliable, just China Pak cultural website. Dawn: series of articles written by subject's member counts as primary. Tribune and Dunya is OK as I already mentioned M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Geo source is a feature, not interview. Quoting subject's words in-between doesn't make any piece primary. Youlin Magazine has an "about us" page and editorial oversight, therefore it should be considered reliable. Actually, its the Mangobaaz source which though gives significant coverage but is of dubious nature. Insight 3 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the primary author of this article, it's hard for me to understand how there is serious debate that the topic of the article is demonstrably notable. As per WP:BAND the article cites multiple non-trivial and independent sources on its history and productions. The band has produced albums, their music is played on local radio, and they were prominently featured on a national televisions show. This band is about as notable as a band can be in Pakistan without yet having found an international audience.Ferox Seneca (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sufficient international coverage of notability and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; highest achievement was second and third place in a "Battle of the Bands" show. Also lacks enough reliable sources for notability. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your other points may be valid but I must take issue with your statement that international coverage is required. Would you say the same if sources in an article about a band in a much less populous country, such as the United Kingdom or Australia, were limited to one country? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as newspapers The Express Tribune and Dawn and therefore passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: deciding where the article subject falls with regards to WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST is challenging, with strong arguments to be made on either side. There is also the question of whether coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:SIGCOV. I will have to think about this for a while before I decide where to land. Shawn Teller (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep (with some comments): This broadcaster appears to at least exist per WRTH, and if the photo of its headquarters building in the article is actually its headquarters, then presumably it is relatively significant within its market. The article is not well written and poorly sourced but just because the TV/radio channels are in Kurdistan rather than a Western country, does not mean the article should go. Someone with greater knowledge of the Kurdish language and the Kurdish media market (but who is unconnected to this broadcaster) should take a look at this article with a view to improvements. Flip Format (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The "keep" !votes are very weak, but so are the "delete" ones... More (and better argued) input needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not exactly a lot out there on Kurdish television. Seems relevant and is sourced, which I'm shocked by considering the situation. Keep it.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WAAR Media is known Waar TV is a Channel supported by Palo Broadcasting Company and owned by Kurdistan Regional Government President Nechirvan Barzani. See Mawazin News Arabic or Frequency Waar TV
I want to keep this, all I need to see is Two clearly independent sources with something that can plausibly be considered SIGCOV (not promotional) // Timothy :: talk14:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kurdish-language television channels: The sourcing is very weak, nothing that is not promotional. The article doesn't appear promotional, just basic information. There is enough sourcing to show the basic factual information in the article is correct, but this doesn't demonstrate notability. Two clearly independent sources with something that can plausibly be considered SIGCOV without a pants-on-fire rebuff would shift me to keep; I want an excuse to keep this article and agree with Flip Format comments. // Timothy :: talk13:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. Does not seem like a particularly notable programme, only passing mentions in RS that I can find JMWt (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's quite hard to see why this single episode should ever have been an article in the first place, as there is no assertion of notability and no evidence either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. It's not mentioned at BBC Schools, and I am not sure there is a valid connection. If there is, a redirect would be appropriate if it is added to the article.Onel5969TT me19:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The two sources in the article, easyzic and 243stars, appear to be user generated. Those sources also don't describe a significant artist, they basically say he released a single that was successful in his home town. Outside of the user generated sources on the page there is close to nothing on "Landen Guhanika" available online, and there is no reliable source coverage. This biography fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Mvqr (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep per SKCRIT #1, no deletion rationale advanced. MOS are not grounds for deletion; they are rather best known methods on how we present information. A deletion nomination referencing an MOS is a tacit admission that the information should be kept... just not like this. Likewise, move of AFC to mainspace is not a deletion criterion per se, but may indicate that other deletion criteria might apply; the nom makes no such argument. Jclemens (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No policy/guideline based reason to keep. When MOS says article shouldn't exist, that's a reason to draftify it. The article has potential, just not yet, it's WP:TOOSOON. A WP:SUMMARY style article of the series is not needed when only three notable entries. Note on AfC move is a note on context, not reason to delete, draft shouldn't have been moved to mainspace without consulting main editors of the draft. Indagate (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works: you have the obligation to advance a policy-based rationale for deleting the article; the reason to keep something is that such an argument hasn't been advanced. You still haven't advanced one. MOS doesn't have the scope to say something should or should not exist, just like deletion guidelines don't tell us whether something can have an infobox or not. MOS'es are indeed generally relied upon... but not for deletion discussions, because that's outside their remit. As far as re-draftifying? That's entirely reasonable but it's not a delete outcome. So why are we here? Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rian Johnson. Two films don't make a series, particularly if only one character is continued through them all, but talking about the films in context of Rian Johnson seems very natural. Most of the content would not carry like the cast/crew table. --Masem (t) 18:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with InfiniteNexus that this is too soon. It may be an article worth creating down the road, but it's not time yet. I also believe that when/if that time comes it will not be called a Knives Out film series. Nemov (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify; I accepted the article because MOS:FILMSERIES only states that an article should be created when the series encompasses at least three films, but doesn't explicitly state that those films need to be released -- perhaps that should be changed to make it clearer. Since the third film is already in development, it can be moved back to draft until it satisfies MOS:FILMSERIES. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a film hasn't been released, or even entered production, it doesn't exist yet. In Hollywood, sequels can get canceled, delayed, reworked, put on hold, sent to development hell, rebooted, etc. at any given moment. That's why it's important that we wait until we are absolutely certain this is a full-fledged series (and not just a two-film thing) notable for its own article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Though film number 3 is currently in development, it is not yet filming. While that will likely happen sooner than later, this article was moved to the mainspace a bit too soon.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer: when I first started the draft for this article, the title of Knives Out film series was used as a placeholder. Instead of deleting the article permanently - this should be moved back to a draft, and should Rian Johnson choose a different name for the series, we can change the name of the article at that point.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Aside from Wikipedia mirrors and the two extremely antiquated sources in this article, there's basically nothing coming up in searches for this article that was recently "translated" from Simple English wikipedia. Misspelled? Unintentional hoax? Whatever it is, I can't find WP:GNG for it. asilvering (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the information of this very Meitei deity are available in Meitei language sources (in formats which are not readable to OCR) and less in English language sources. That's why Google doesn't display much in its Latin spelling search. It's neither misspelled nor a hoax. I have added a good source in Meitei language. Hope it might help the article to some extend. --Haoreima (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After Haoreima's addition of a more recently-published source. The wp:search engine test used by nom risks reinforcing systemic bias in articles related to a culture whose native language is not recognised by OCR. small jarstc10:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is at least a notable subject and now possess reliable source (added after this deletion nomination). Thanks! --Haoreima (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: For one thing, I find the article interesting, as written. Also, I find some references in EBSCOHost via Wikipedia Library, by searching with quote marks on "Desert Hills, Arizona", for example as follows (though I am not sure if editors can see these if they have not first gone to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ and achieved log-in as a Wikipedia editor (no prior setup is required)):
in "A Blaze of Glory" about a horse "We were at a futurity [i didn't previously know of that kind of race] in Desert Hills, Arizona...."
and the first sentence of another article: "It’s a bit out of character for Jim Scott to take a few months off from entering up at the plethora of ropings near his Desert Hills, Arizona, home, but a December horse wreck that resulted in a few broken ribs and a fractured vertebra forced him to take a break in the waning months of his 88th year."
Rider's Digest, about Brenda Brown: Hometown: Desert Hills, Arizona Age: 49 Occupation: City of Chandler Riding resume: Introduced to horses by her husband of 11 years, a cutter.....
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I declined a G5 speedy delete in order to see if there was anything worth saving. Certainly, the Ordre national du Mérite, a national order of merit awarded by the President of France meant there could be something. However, all I could find was a single article by Radio France Internationale. I tried checking through the bibliography at the bottom, but either could not access the text or the book failed to mention her outside of a directory mention. I think there may be a valid redirect and mention at her husband's page, Thierry de Montbrial, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I'm happy to reconsider if additional sources are found. The 2014 award shows the potential for notability, however I too am unable to find any independent sources providing in-depth coverage. Thank you Why? I Ask for bringing this to AFD after declining the G5 nomination, I greatly appreciate your efforts. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle06:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her husband Thierry de Montbrial appears to have some academic or author notability (search Google scholar for intitle:"de montbrial") but I can find none for her. The article concentrates on non-notable-seeming personal details, with no sources of a type that could provide notability. The best is filmfestivals but that appears to be the same sort of thing as imdb, which we don't allow as a notability-generating source. We also have an unsourced listing of films she has somehow been associated with, some of which are very notable, and if it could be shown that she played a significant role in multiple notable films then we might have some notability that way. But spot-checking Fanny and Alexander, Subway (film), A Day to Remember (1991 film), I see no mention of her, neither under her maiden nor married names. She is named as a writer and producer for Hercule et Sherlock but I don't think that's enough, especially without press going into detail about her role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep I would say there is at least something there to keep the page (the main issue seems to be that the sources are primarily in French) but feel that if that is not possible, then I'd support a redirect to Thierry de Montbrial.Historyday01 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't that the sources are French. We have Google Translate for that, and her name does not change when searching in French. The issue is that the sources are unfit for supporting an article and the bibliography offers nothing. (The one source I said is helpful is in French). However, your thoughts on a redirect are noted. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, also to see if there is support for a redirect Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on her bio, it's easy to see (from a French perspective) why she would earn an Ordre national du Mérite. She has had a solid life-long association with French cinema, from film production through President of a French film production company and a lecturer at a Paris based Arts University. If it was up to me, I'd call her notable just for being associated with one of the best French films of all time, Luc Besson's Subway, but I'd argue that the sum total of her work with major directors is sufficient to meet the requirements of English language wikipedia. MNewnham (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited from either her work with directors or her work on film. Please provide specific reliable sources that demonstrate she meets WP:GNG. I also don't see any proof, (echoing David Eppstein above) of her involvement in the movie Subway anyway, so that is sort of a moot point. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Kajang 2 railway station with the option of merging sourceable content that isn't at the target. There is consensus that this isn't a hoax, and is likely notable, but the information exists at a different title in better form. Vanamonde (Talk)22:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an advertisement. It's a real KTM Komuter commuter (railway) station that will be opened on the 13 of March. So I think it's in line with the other articles about the same topic. As it's new, not a lot of information is out yet. FikkuFiq07:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the duplicate article at Kajang 2 railway station, the other one seems more detailed so I would suggest merging that article to this title to mantain consistency (other station articles on this line use the Komuter station title format) JumpytooTalk22:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Also we hold railway stations notable. Not sure why this was nominated. We have absolutely no shortage of AfDs, including some that are justified. Thank you, User:Fikku_fiq, for creating this article! gidonb (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The AfD was justified after all, though not as intended, as there is a slightly older article in the draft space. Please delete to make place. gidonb (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Gidonb and everyone for your opinions, but I think this article should be deleted as Kajang 2 railway station that contains more information has been published. I'll update the links to this article and relink them to the newly published article. Once this article is deleted, we can move that new one as Kajang 2 Komuter station. I hope we all can agree on that. FikkuFiq17:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not an advertisement. I am simply posting the content of the references while trying to keep it straight forward for viewers instead to understand what this company actually does. If you think some parts of it should be changed then you could just focus on them instead of just asking for the entire article to be deleted. Also I disagree about it having no significant coverage considering the articles are about the company itself and not just mere short mentions. ImcdcContact09:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Marina Centre. I couldn't find any significant coverage with a Google search, on Newslink or on NewspaperSG (most of the articles regarding the building are about its tenants, restaurants within the building, or the adjacent Citylink Mall). Still, it could be a valid search term for the area. R22-3877 (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not demonstrate notability, all sources are primary sources. The article also reads like an ad. This article is brought to my attention after it is translated into Chinese and taken to AfD there. MilkyDefer06:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Defer The school is not a scam. It is not regionally accredited but does have other accredtiation and is legally authorized in the state of Louisiana. - see https://nationsu.edu/accreditation/
That said article needs serious work, including more secondary sources, so I would suggest deferring deletion to provide time for editors to add appropriate citations. Jmbranum (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several additional citations. The sources are mostly from the Christian Chronicle (a newspaper that covers the Churches of Christ, the religious tradition that founded this school). Jmbranum (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources of books and newspapers identified above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I feel that this might be a poor deletion. Having reviewed the article, I think it may qualify for more time before a deletion, per Wikipedia:Notability (sports) FAQ #4. I was able to find some notable coverage that occurred between article creation 3 days ago and present, specifically put out by the International Olympic Committee's news arm, and have added it to the article accordingly. I agree that down the road this might be a candidate for deletion, I am just unsure if seven days may be enough given the ongoing/new nature of the league. Kwkintegrator (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's on going event, I think people are adding more context to it. I disagree with deletion. Can move to draft first. Ojvolleyball (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Olympics' website is covering it and somehow it even got a mention out of ESPN, which has never presented any information about VB.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The statement "ESPN, which has never presented any information about VB" is completely false, But its does show that this editor is just making statements, without any sources or validity based in guidelines.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, please consider after article improvements since nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NSPORTS. Source assessment:
Highlights of a single game, no SIGCOV about subject: Sportstar, Team (5 March 2023). "PVL 2023 Final, HIGHLIGHTS: Ahmedabad Defenders wins title, beats Bengaluru Torpedoes 3-2". sportstar.thehindu.com. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
Stats. No SIGCOV about the subject: Nag, Utathya. "Prime Volleyball League 2023: All scores, results and points table". International Olympic Committee. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
About Volleyball Club World Championship 2023, mention of subject, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth: Nalwala, Ali Asgar. "India to host FIVB Volleyball Men's Club World Championship in 2023 and 2024". International Olympic Committee. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
Official website of the subject, no Ind RS for subject. "Fixtures & Results | Prime Volleyball League". www.primevolleyballleague.com.
Delete The first source is literally a play by play with a list of league award winners, the second shows league standings, the third is about India hosting the club world championships with a passing mention that the league champion will be India's representative, and the fourth is the league's website. There is no significant independent coverage in any of the sources. Papaursa (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider a redirect option (but please settle on one target). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither of the suggested redirect targets mention Bennett nor would I expect either of them to, given that she is not a significant figure in their history. I agree with the nominator on the failure of WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)11:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Those arguing to keep this article describe it as a broad article about a pro-democracy movement in Iran. To justify such an article, we need at least a few equally broad sources discussing the topic in the same way our article does. These sources have not been provided. Sources have been provided about the protests as a whole; about individual incidents, slogans, and actors within the protests; and about specific meetings or coordination efforts. But these by and large have articles of their own, and bringing them together into a single article is indeed forbidden synthesis, as the delete opinions point out. As such the keep !votes are largely not based in policy, and there is consensus to delete. This does not preclude such an article in the future; indeed, it's not unlikely that overviews will appear in the scholarly literature a few years removed from the current protests; but we cannot pre-empt those. Vanamonde (Talk)22:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization, one of many groups of people involved in the protests in Iran. Did not receive any sort of substantial coverage in RS, as said in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE deletion, KEEP article Its not an "organization", its a "movement", as stated in the title. And a movement with a long and highly notable history. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three media citations were given, so why would you say that? Did you not read it? As stated in the article: "This effort received some attention from the press"[3][4][5] and are seeking support from the international community.[6]Jaredscribe (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 march @Charles Essie improved the lede to clarify this point of it being a movement, not a unified group. the article title also makes that clear, especially if we move it into lower case, which I've proposed doing immediately after this discussion closes, and I presume everyone agrees. I don't think we can move if while this AfD discussion is underway. the lower casing will make clear that its not proper name, or widely used acronym. Since then, the lede sentence has read
RENAME article Starting to agree with my critics below, upon further research. Although it wasn't my intention, the article conveyed the subtle impression, that there was a unified front, which there isn't. A somewhat WP:SYNTH claim supported by only a minority of sources, partisan ones.
I've modified the lede to remove that impression. But renaming the article as a whole may help.
A previous article Iranian dissidents was merged into these, so we could move it back to that.
Or we could name it Iranian opposition.
Or we could call it Iranian democracy movements in the plural, lowercase. That would be my vote. and the scope of the article would be from approximately the 1920s to the present
Also, the article now has 56 references; when this process started, there were only 3 or 4. I therefore ask everyone to re-evaluate this article. Jaredscribe (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2018_Iranian_university_protests had a red link to this, and it just went blue when we made the article. I had never been there until just now. Its history shows that hadn't been edited since 1 Jan, and I don't know how long that link had been red, but it would be interesting to investigate. Mention of an "Iranian Democracy Movement" occurred in quite a number of articles. In fact, I created this article out of another redlink somewhere - I don't even remember exactly where. we are responding to an expressed need, by making this article. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not describe an organization, as mentioned above, but a political movement. It's easily on its way to becoming a broad concept article that organizes the different notable groups and individuals who are working to bring about a regime change in Iran. Joyous!Noise!21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with the emerging consensus, I have undertaken to WP:BOLDly move the article by lower-casing its title. Iranian democracy movement is now what we are talking about, to address the earlier confusion and concerns of the deletion-nominating editor. I'll now move to close the discussion, with a consensus for keep article, oppose deletion. If someone wishes to renominate for deletion, based on new reasons, they may. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: different parts of this article seem to be WP:HOAX, and other parts are not notable. Like others are saying, there is indeed a term "Iranian democracy movement" that has been used in the media to describe recent protests in Iran, but this obscure group seems to have expropriated that term as their name (which does not make this group notable). The lead of the article mentions the National Council of Resistance of Iran and People's Mujahedin of Iran as "leading coalition", which is a hoax. The "Notable dissidents" part mentions individuals that are unrelated to this group. The section "Bibliography" part has a single book from 2011 that does not mention this group. And as the OP said, the group itself has not received any sort of substantial coverage in RS. ParadaJulio (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article promotes this this group as the "Iranian democracy movement", which is a group that hasn't received any substantial media coverage or has anything to do with either the National Council of Resistance of Iran or People's Mujahedin of Iran (contrary to the hoax claims made in the article). If your argument is that the "Iranian democracy movement" is the protests themselves, then the discussion should be about renaming the protests or merging some of them under an umbrella term. ParadaJulio (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely recommend that this article be rewritten to provide better coverage of the movement as whole, especially since that group doesn't seem to even be an actual group but rather a meeting of opposition leaders, a meeting that is in fact already covered here. Charles Essie (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that group is not "the movement", that is a 'summit' of political and cultural leaders who got together to discuss "the future of the movement". Jaredscribe (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References to the NCRI and MEK are now removed from the lede. It was a mis-understanding that was my fault, not an intentional hoax. I was trying to list the various disparate groups. Someone who is more knowledgeable than I am should do this. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the NCRI/MEK into a sub-section under '''Organized Resistance Groups'''. That is a fact, its not a hoax.
Maryam Rajavi's 10-point plan has been endorsed, most recently in 2023, by the U.S. House of representatives no less, in H.R. 100, “support for the opposition leader Mrs. Maryam Rajavi’s 10-point plan for the future of Iran, which calls for the universal right to vote, free elections, and a market economy, and advocates gender, religious, and ethnic equality, a foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence, and a nonnuclear Iran.”[75]
Delete: There's already an article for the National Council of Resistance of Iran and its many fronts, as well as articles for the protest movements. This article seems to be about NCRI-backed movement, or meant to present NCRI as the leading opposition force. As such, I don't think it needs a standalone article, since NCRI/MEK are the right place for this. MarioGom (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not about an organisation and there is nothing about MEK in it now. Plenty of references available in different languages. GharouniTalk00:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read and write Farsi? I cannot, nor arabic. Perhaps you can add these references, make translations, link to wikidata items, recruit other Farsi-speaking editors?
Thank you for you constructive edits to other articles in this subject matter
@Gharouni the group at The future of Iran's democracy movement meeting have published their joint charter, and they are now styling themselves the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran, so so I've proposed renaming that article. See its talk page.
Thank you! Maybe a the farsi wikipedia is a good first place to start? How is that project organizing this subject matter? Feel free to use the template
.mw-parser-output .hidden-begin{box-sizing:border-box;width:100%;padding:5px;border:none;font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .hidden-title{font-weight:bold;line-height:1.6;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .hidden-content{text-align:left}@media all and (max-width:500px){.mw-parser-output .hidden-begin{width:auto!important;clear:none!important;float:none!important))You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Persian. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Persian Wikipedia article at [[:fa:Exact name of the Persian article]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template ((Translated page|fa|Exact name of Persian article)) to the talk page.
For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.
Comment: This article is about The future of Iran’s democracy movement, and not about the Iranian protests or the advocacy of democracy in Iran (which is a very complex umbrella term). If the article was really about the protests, then what we would be doing is merging or renaming some of the protest articles as "Iranian Democracy Movement", but that's not what's happening here. Fundamentally, the sources in the article don't meet WP:GNG (despite some editors claiming that they do). ParadaJulio (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article under scrutiny for deletion IS about the advocacy of democracy in Iran, in response to the protests, which as you say is a complex umbrella term, and we are deferring to how it has been used by notable dissidents and in the media, and calling it the Iranian Democracy Movement - past, present, and possible futures. the article you linked, was the name of the Feb 2023 summit that met to ask about its future. obviously, this is notable enough to warrant a broad concept article. if the crown prince, Reza Pahlavi is meeting to ask about "its" future, with 7 other leaders all notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages, than whatever "it" is is notable enough to both have a future and to have a wikipedia article about it. What "it" is, is the "Iranian Democracy Movement".
This whole discussion betrays WP:Systemic bias toward an Anglo-american perspective, as if the Iranian media is of no interest and no import, and unless CNN runs a special there is "no significant" media coverage and we might as well quit. What? We should be better than that. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems riddled with original research and strenuous connections with no sources to verify them, or sources that are about a group but not a movement per se (even after I’ve copy-edited it). JoseJan89 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had tagged it as there isn't one group called the "IRANIAN DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT", but rather a bunch of people and small groups working towards the same goal. I think that might be the issue, the article can't decide what it's about, one group, or the movement as a social phenomena. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The supporters of the article have decided what its about - the movement as a social phenomenon. Its detractors the deletionists are still trying to figure out how best to slander it. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they're not trying to figure out anything. They're trying to pretend that they didn't hear what I and several other supporters have repeatedly affirmed.
Have any of you even read the article's lede sentence?
"The Iranian Democracy Movement is a political movement consisting of a diverse range of dissidents, political and cultural leaders, and militants working for regime change and proposing possible new constitutional frameworks for Iran."
I restored the previous version, and tagged with [citation needed] because yes, sources should be given. Since many sources and citations can be founded on all of those linked articles, lets wait until I or someone does the research and copy-paste. Perhaps you could do something constructive and help out with this? By the way, the WP:SKYISBLUE. You can tag the section
Jaredscribe: I'm trying to help you here, but you're not making it easy. Since your argument is that the article is about a movement (and not about that summit), can you please list the sources that discuss (with substance) the movement? JoseJan89 (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's clear that there aren't reliable sources for a movement (there are only a few sources about a demoracy summit, for which there is already an article). Jaredscribe keeps trying to bulk up the article with more original research and strenuous connections of groups completely unrelated to each other (National Council of Iran, National Council of Resistance of Iran, Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, etc) which is now threading into misinformation. Bottom line is that there aren't reliable sources covering a joint democracy movement in Iran (or any other type of joint movement). As much as I like the idea of an organized democracy movement uprising in Iran, this article is just a badly-written essay. Delete, delete, delete. JoseJan89 (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you can say that this is '''completely unrelated''', or that a bipartisan resolution is misinformation. This article purports to be a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article that proposes to briefly encapulate exising articles on all the various groups that support some form of democracy, republicanism, or constitutional monarchy as an alternative to the current regime.
A majority of members of the US House of Representatives backed a “bipartisan resolution” in June 2020 supporting Maryam Rajavi and the NCRI's “call for a secular, democratic Iran” while “condemning Iranian state-sponsored terrorism”. The resolution, backed by 221 lawmakers, gave support to the Rajavi's 10-point plan for Iran's future (which include “a universal right to vote, market economy, and a non-nuclear Iran”) while calling on the prevention of “malign activities of the Iranian regime’s diplomatic missions.” The resolution also called on the U.S. to stand “with the people of Iran who are continuing to hold legitimate and peaceful protests” against the Iranian government.[7][8]Jaredscribe (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jaredscribe, you keep referencing the NCRI even though they have nothing to do with Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran. "Democracy, republicanism, or constitutional monarchy" are different things. You've created an article consisting of an indiscriminate list of Iranian groups (with different political views) that have nothing to do with one another, and then you made the unsupported assertion that these groups somehow form part of the same "Iranian democracy movement". ParadaJulio (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has long advocated for free elections to form a constituent assembly that could determine the future form of governance in Iran.
Spain and Britain are parliamentary democracies that have 'constitutional monarchies'. its not indiscriminate, and these forms of government have much to do with each other, specifically - a constitution and rule of law Jaredscribe (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see no consensus here with some editors stating this is an important movement and other editors saying some of the content is a hoax. Maybe there will be more clarity after a few more days of consideration. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:SYNTH. That different groups want democracy in Iran doesn't mean that they form part of the same movement (or that they want the same kind of "democracy", or are working towards the same objectives). Sources certainly don't cover it that way so it would be WP:SYNTH to make that assumption. Poya-P (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are all working toward regime change, that much is established by all the sources. Finding the common denominators between them, as well as the differences, is the role of this article, and that is an appropriate function for an Wikipedia:Encyclopedia.
The details of the transition differ from the various groups. It is not 'unified', but that doesn't mean its not a movement. I would consider a different name for the article, if someone wishes to propose one. I'm following the designation of these Iranian resistance leaders, as reported in the sources, in calling the article what its now called, the 'Iranian Democracy Movement' - which is something larger than the NCI, the NCRI, the OAIC, or any one political party or dissident group, ,but also comprises them all, and purports to respond the the demands and aspirations of the protestors in Iran Jaredscribe (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't one cohesive group, as much as the media is trying to portray it. We already have articles about the protests and items surrounding it, what's here is basically duplicated in other articles. This is trying to make something out of sources that don't discuss this item. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that its not a 'cohesive group'. neither i nor the article are portraying it as such.
Delete I also don't see any source that supports that these opposing groups are part of a related Iranian Democracy Movement. Looking forward to Jaredscribe' WP:BLUDGEON-ing reply :) . Iraniangal777 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't want to bludgeon one, trying to instead incise like with a scalpel. this article has grown from 3-4 sources when the deletion process started, and has now grown to over 50. the deletionists it seems were responding to defects in the article itself, rather than to the subject matter itself, of which many of them may have been simply unaware.
If you see my recent reply to my original vote, above, I am beginning to concur that the article should be renamed so as not to present the impression of a united front. Thoughts? Suggestions? Jaredscribe (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 50 sources for topics already covered in other articles and that make no mention of an "Iranian Democracy Movement" doesn't make this article notable. ParadaJulio (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep As mentioned above, its a movement, not an organization. We could massively re-write the article, but for the most part, the article is notable enough. Trenton698 (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet ParadaJulio (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Festschrifts abound, as noted on the 'Festschifts' page. It's not clear what makes this one worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The point about this volume having prompted Soble's criteria for a Festschrift is potentially significant, but a reader would be more likely to look for this information on the 'Festschfit' page, where it appears in greater detail (and where the criteria are described as somewhat tongue-in-cheek), or on the Soble page. Sunyataivarupam (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery *it has begun...00:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly meets WP:NB and WP:GNG with multiple reviews in academic journals. If both were brief this would be a marginal case, but Soble's goes into a lot more depth than is normal for the form. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I agree that we have significant coverage of her in the context of her birth from many newspapers across the world (though I will note that we do not have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE; it appears to have been a blip in the news cycle). However, that coverage doesn't matter under WP:BLP1E unless it is in the context of multiple events. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP concerns; merge if necessary, but I find it hard to justify linking to a few months old babe for any reason. SN5412916:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are likely c. 200 such "8 billionth baby" so I don't see any reason why this one should be considered more important than the others. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Fails GNG. Source 1 is transfer news, source 2 is about him being hired by Progreso de Obregón to promote football and source 3 is about him maybe playing for Pachuca. Dougal18 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and the sources noted above are the same as what I found in my BEFORE search plus several other trivial items like a match report indicating he scored an own goal. It appears that Martínez was primarily on the fringe of the Pachuca squad, and only started regularly for one-half of a season, so I'm not surprised we couldn't find significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that #1 and #3 are by the same author and so are not separate sources. #2 only contains:
After a long wait, Raúl Martínez, Pachuca's holding midfielder, could reappear in a First Division match. The last time he lined up was a year and a half ago, against Jaguares de Chiapas. From that day until today, Raúl has only had action in the Second Division branch led by Rubén Ayala. The next Thursday he received the news of training among the headlines. However, this time he will have the support of his wife and son Santiago, from the stands.
Transactional coverage falls under NOTNEWS: routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage and is additionally described in ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. ... Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. Sports orgs distribute planned announcements of transfers, injuries, etc. to the media (via press releases, press conferences, and interviews) with the intent of self-promotion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. As noted, sources #1 and #3 are both by the same author and thus count as a single source. Source #2 is mostly interview (i.e WP:PRIMARY) with what little left not being enough to be considered significant. Alvaldi (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just spent an hour doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources, all of which go into his background. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". Defiantly also has offline sources, having played 44 fully pro Mexican top flight games in 2000s as well as many fully pro Mexican second tier games in a career lasting 10+ years. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Accolades appear wonderful, but nothing notable. Only mentions found are business profiles, linkedin in the like. Not meeting GNG, possible PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we discard all the other sources, such as from UNICEF, or Ashoka or Forbes, etc, IMO and understanding of WP:GNG, this person definitely meets it. Thanks. X (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was previously asked by submitter to review this at AfC but declined for various reasons. Now I went through the references listed above and unfortunately there is not significant coverage to support notability. The person seems to be listed as Forbes 30 Under 30 which is great but does not grant inherent notability and the majority of the references seem to be snippets about the honor. Here are comments on some of the references. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mic is not reliable as it relies on branded content.
The Daily Star seems reliable but looks more like a routine announcement of the award instead of something in-depth about the individual.
Per WP:Perennial_sources , "China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment" which tells me it is not to be relied on for notability. This is basically a source that can be used to support content if no other source is available, and then only with "good editorial judgement" as stated.
ThisChina Daily source is deceptive to list above as it is the same article as the previous, just in a different version of the publication.
TBS News reference is focused on the company. It does talk about the subject's founding of the company but the article's in-depth focus is not on the founder, but the company.
The Daily Star which is actually similar to the other Daily Star piece as it was printed one day apart.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable musician, largely sourced to religious-themed websites, somewhat PROMO. No charted singles, few if any mentions otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Jeddman is a notable muscian. He is not affiliated to any kind of promotions. All attached links are authentic and genuine. Kindly do your research well with facts. Blackan007 (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s clearly stated he’s soon going to release a book. It was never stated he is an author, but an upcoming. This criticism is not factual. Blackan007 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe if client in discussion is not famous, there would not be related searches below his article. Don't forget he was successful with his project "Favour" with Ghana VGMA Awards winner, MOG Music. Blackan007 (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand to correct, Ghanaweb.com is not a religious affiliated website but i see a reference point there. Your statement is not entirely correct. Daniel Jeddman i know is known both in Ghana and in many parts of Europe especially in the diaspora in Germany. Grun Berry (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: Some of us know he has more than one album! I dont know why the editor wrote only one. I may have to crosscheck or reseach to add what is missing. Grun Berry (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has apparently released exactly one album, and Wikipedia is not where you go to get signed for another. Creator also admitted to writing in exchange for payment, and refers to the subject as their client in edit summaries. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)01:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not promotional. I would have stated emphatically. Knowing how versatile he is in music, both in Europe and Africa, confidently asked me to assist him publish. There was true nothing to do with promotion. Daniel Jeddman is already verified on Facebook, Youtube and Google (Knowledge Panel). Kindly check attached links on article. He definitely ain't here to show off. But to add to the great work of Wikipedia. Blackan007 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand to correct kindly, Daniel Jeddman has two albums to his credits. Daniel Jeddman is a notable Ghanaian gospel artist registered under the Ghana Gospel Music Industry and in Germany as well. Blackan007 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it's two albums. And a conflict of interest. Why does this even require discussion? The use of phrases like "on behalf of my client" should be CSD all by themselves. That, and the fact that you admit you're getting paid, but insist it's "nothing to do with promotion". - Sumanuil. (talk to me)03:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is overwhelmingly promotional, and I suspect that it is intended to draw attention to his ministry. In the argument above, the article's supporter needs to understand that this is an encyclopedia in which a person must qualify for an article that will benefit the interested reader. Wikipedia is not meant to be a repeat of a person's own websites, social media accounts, and press releases that are already plastered all over the Internet. Let the gentleman continue his relentless efforts out there. For Wikipedia's purposes, he has no significant or reliable coverage for his music or other endeavors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel so embarassed reading this. I may have brought this sort of ridicule upon myself against an innocent gospel artist. Allowing people to feed on him publicly against his name and integrity. I am as strict as you are. But my observations are quite different than yours. I don't know how to put it again really. But the simple truth is, subject is A NOTABLE PUBLIC FIGURE, and as an editor I did my research to publish which I noted clearly on my Talk page without hestitation. And yes I was given a sum to publish and not to promote.
The judgement you are all passing seems rather intruiging and not fact based. Why will an editor attempt to publish an article of a non-notable figure. I least expected these kinds of responses. I thought correcting article, cites and others would have been the matters to discuss. Needless to say, it is all well however you want to take it Doom. Blackan007 (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - Why because editor is not observing COI! There is definitely a misconception here without proper assessment. I STANT TO CORRECT, there is no breach of rules here. Kindly do your research as a professional and a experienced as you are. Don't read comments to declare a stand. That is not noteworthy nor expected to declare a stand.
Don't Delete – The article is totally far from promotional. It's rather sad to see editors feed and validate on the page as prey to feed on for days. Suspecting something just has to do with your thoughts and no matter how you think, the truth remains the same. The page is NOT PROMOTIONAL. I don't know what have become of some of the editors of Wikipedia, but I hope the main administrators of this platform are observing. I took some time also to check other pages from same editors against the page in discussion and notice they use the same force and aggression to either sabotage, discriminate or deced against religious believes that is clearly against the policies of Wikipedia.
Whatever they want to achieve to succeed will not be well. Because subject in discussion is not definitely not here for fame. What is wrong for an editor to post the achievements and progress of a notable ghanaian artist? I simply don't understand. Experience in a field also need etiquitte to match up with.
The page is non–promotional!
However, I'm not touching page ever again. Will just have to focus on others now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackan007 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I’ve been just confused, depressed, discouraged and low in confidence regarding the situation I’ve met here. I probably shouldn’t have gone forward to take this task. Maybe this place is not for me or seniors should be a bit considerate and tolerant about their juniors.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Worth noting that I redirected the artist's four albums (Nightmares Turned Into Reality, N.T.I.R. Part 2 The Revenge of Serio, Gansterism Part 3, and Soy Chicano Rap), seeing them all as also non-notable, but Josefina213 just restored all four claiming that coverage exists. Having looked at the coverage again, I think it's all still crap, so I've started another AfD for those. QuietHere (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know nothing about music in this genre and you are very unprofessional and a cyber bully this Rap artist has songs with charted artist and has been covered recently by Fox News. This issue has already been addressed and the deletion tag has been removed before and will get removed again same for all related Serio articles. Josefina213 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article Stays and deletion tag removed this artist has been covered by Music Television and Billboard and AllMusic and recently by Fox News. Josefina213 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on removing valid deletion tags, then that is considered disruptive editing and is not allowed, and could lead to your account being blocked from editing. ArcAngel (talk)23:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When the article's supporter compares a call for evidence to bullying, you know the prospects for notability are doubtful. The rapper has gotten himself onto a lot of streaming platforms and promotional services, but I can find no pro reviews for any of his albums or reliable journalistic coverage on his career and works. Bare listings in AllMusic and the credits for other people's songs in Billboard don't count. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article talk page, this was also tagged for notability in 2011. If they're has been nothing notable in the last decade, I'm not sure what else we'll find at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable film. PROMO, only sourced to non-RS. I don't find any mention of the film, only where you can buy it or stream it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally self-made and self-promoted film that has been noticed by nobody in the reliable media. The Fox News story is actually about someone else who was tangentially associated with the rapper. Does not meet the requirements at WP:NFILM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Page was BLAR'd in April 2021 for failing WP:GNG, but this was contested on February 28, 2023 at this RfD because the new target did not mention the article. Therefore, I have procedurally listed the page at AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List created - not all that many known. I've linked all those I can find, but Sri Lankan names are unpredictable so there may be more to link. I'll get around to sorting alphabetical sections out at some point. So, redirect is now doable I guess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with redirect as RfD nom. Thanks for making the list I should have Blue Square. I've never made such a thing before, but I'll give more consideration to ATD going forward. KatPro (mrow?) 16:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not sure that I am doing this correctly, but this is a non-notable musician, and the article is sourced with links that do not support what's written in the article. Tags were added almost a decade ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauteedredonions (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources listed are in-depth about her life, just minor mentions of collaboration. The only significant source is the Allmusic citation, but it is dubiously reliable per WP:ALLMUSIC. Looking through Google only gave me non-significant coverage like song releases and gossip sites. Carpimaps (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.