< October 10	October 12 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chabaka Kilumanga[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I could find no coverage that meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2022 (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 Puneeth Rajkumar. Redirect as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwini Puneeth Rajkumar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable person. Puneeth Rajkumar simply produced films under her name. No independent notability. Either redirect to PRK Productions or Puneeth Rajkumar. DareshMohan (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is reliable sourcing that husband produced under her name 20 years after they married? —ADavidB 06:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has done 7 notable movies, Kavaludaari, Mayabazar, Law,

~~French Biriyani, One Cut Two Cut, Family Pack, Man of the Match that's enough for a notable producer. Hitfit9999 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)~~(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and Karnataka. TJMSmith (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to my investigations in Google links, she is not notable independent of her spouse. It also could be redirected to Puneeth Rajkumar. Nasin3030 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lâm Du Sơn[edit]

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

Article tagged without proper followup by another editor, but I've taken it upon myself to complete the nomination. No reliable sources provided in the article, and searches for better sources reveal pretty much nothing in English except for Wikipedia mirrors, but there may be better references in Vietnamese. @Saintstephen000: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 22:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --Suitskvarts (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see some opinions from some AFD regulars or someone knowledgeable about the area this subject worked in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 11 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marinelli (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable, minor singer. Fails WP:GNG, which requires significant, reliable, independent and usually secondary sources. Ref 1 is tagged as a blog (non-RS), ref 2 is a promotional website without any editorial policies demonstrating reliability, refs 4 and 5 are trivial, whereas the rest are interviews failing the secondary or SIGCOV requirement. Also fails WP:NSINGER, WP:BEFORE found nothing other than trivial mentions. The article's claim to notability- Marinelli also produced a song that was played during the 2020 Summer Olympics is false, the ref states he even scored a Subway commercial that aired during the Olympics- helping with a Subway commercial isn't a song and fail to show notability. VickKiang (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I agree with the nominator's source analysis, and a search yielded no significant coverage in RS.4meter4 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Malkiewicz[edit]

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

Non notable individual, no significant coverage in RS, consul general is not usually a position that generates notability. Cited sources are not independent. (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 11 October 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daastan Publishers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable publishing company. Refs are PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. UPE. Looking for conensus. scope_creep^Talk 21:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep Found some more coverage 1, 2. I have also heard a lot about them. Fifthapril (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in the article and above fail WP:ORGIND—i. e. they aren't "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject"—so the company itself doesn't meet WP:NCORP. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Styyx. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The business press generates quite a lot of this kind of churnalism but it doesn't render anything notable, and this, like the churnalism, is promotional. FalconK (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luscious Cosmetics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Brochure article. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROMO. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 21:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found. appears promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It was even more of a brochure before press releases and non-verifying stuff was removed. TNT at the last deletion debate was the right answer, and still is. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2022 (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 keep. And copyright violation has been removed and those edits revision deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Hall (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Article sourced to only imdb, I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Actor appears to have only appeared in minor roles as well. W 42 21:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has now been updated with reference to obituary in The Stage, a popular publication which gives obituaries to well-noted and regarded actors. Aside from Emmerdale, his notable roles are in shows which don't have articles created (A Question of Guilt and Curtain of Fear).2A00:23C6:D88E:8901:D53B:E0CC:C329:4335 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- One obituary in a tabloid is insufficient to pass WP:GNG. W 42 13:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and England. W 42 21:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - The Stage isn't a tabloid. They are a respectable weekly magazine (published for 142 years) which provides coverage of theatre in the UK with independent critical reviews. They also cover television and film. It's similar to Variety.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I'd be interested to see just how substantial the obituary referred to above is. There is also this reference regarding the subject's appearance in an On the Buses episode. He appeared in many TV series, but it's questionable whether he gets over the line for WP:NACTOR. At this point, I'll err on the side of caution, but may update my position. Dflaw4 (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but copyright violation needs fixing. I have access to the obit through PROQUEST at my university. There is also a lot of theatre reviews of his performances in the 1950s and 1960s in The Stage and some in Variety available in PROQUEST. Certainly enough significant coverage to pass WP:NACTOR. However, half of the obituary is copy pasted into the article word for word. The copyrighted text reads, "After spending his early years working in the oil industry overseas, Hall entered the acting profession through amateur theatre in Wolverhampton and Central School. This in turn led to him becoming a valued member of repertory and regional companies, notably at Pitlochry, Lincoln and Chesterfield followed by numerous TV credits. The actor also worked for Equity, inspiring others to sustain an career in acting. Fred sadly died in a London hospice, a few months after the passing of Dora, his wife of 31 years." This is a copyright violation. The obit does have an attributed author though, Graham Lines, so this was not a paid for death notice but a by-lined obit by a staff writer.4meter4 (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC):[reply]

Comment copyvio has been removed and tagged for selective revdel. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2022 (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 RaidForums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Santos Coelho[edit]

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

Coelho is only known for his connection to RaidForums. All the press coverage simply mentions his arrest. The 3 sentences that make up Diogo Santos Coelho should be incorporated into the RaidForum's article, as per WP:CRIME. - Mooonswimmer 21:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRIME, there is no need for a separate article. Redirect to RaidForums as there is nothing really to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Association of Chemistry Teachers[edit]

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

No sources have been added for over 10 years. Unable to find significant coverage and article likely is purely an advert for the organization. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Organizations, Education, and India. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could find no coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV --Suitskvarts (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2022 (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 Chandra Shekhar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duja Devi[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. As the spouse of a notable politician, Duja Devi is not inherently notable in her own right and, in fact, there is no evidence of notability presented in the article or, indeed, in searching (typical is an Economic Times article that talks about unmarried politicians). Clearly fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of coverage or notability beyond being the spouse of a Prime Minister. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She seems to fail GNG, but how about the college of here name in the article? Maybe merging with her husband page would be more aprop. --Suitskvarts (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As of Wikipedia:Notability (politics), She is notable as she was the monogamous spouse or life partner of a national head of state in any country. You can see here. Contributor008 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chandra Shekhar. Her husband was head of government, not the head of state. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the criteria The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable which can be seen in Wikipedia:Notability (politics) section under the subheading Political figures not elected to public office Jehowahyereh (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vanamonde lacks independent notability.NeptuneFlows (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above comment is from a user who created the account today. Jehowahyereh (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete The article can be kept as she was the Spouse of the prime minister of India, as per WP:NPOLITICIAN's point 8 (basic criteria), same as Gursharan Kaur (wife of PM Manmohan Singh, does not hold any political or elected position), Sheila Gujral (wife of PM Inder Kumar Gujral with no notability except being the Spouse of PM) or can be redirected to Chandra Shekhar or Spouse of the prime minister of India. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2022 (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 Procedural keep. Wrong venue. (non-admin closure) VQuakr (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Augmentation[edit]

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

No one uses this term and it is uncited Rosedaler (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep/procedural keep. Wrong venue. This is and was a redirect. As a reminder, @Rosedaler:, redirects you wish to be deleted should be proposed following the instructions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and not WP:AFD. Skynxnex (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2022 (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 keep. Editors found consensus that Seale meets WP:CREATIVE criterion #3 through multiple reviews of her work that contain non-trivial discussion of her role as translator. (non-admin closure) ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine Seale[edit]

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

We have a translator here - but the role of translator is incredibly common and not inherently notable, even if the works in translation are. We have the claim that she is the first woman to translate The Arabian Nights but that's really cheese-paring - the first translation of that work we have into a Romance language was in the early C18th. In literature in general, we have WP:AUTHOR - "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors or the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique or the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and that's not demonstrated here. Arablit as a source is effectively a blog and although Martia Lynx Qualey is a respected writer on the subject of Arabic translation, I'd wonder whether the many references here to Arablit or Martia's work are sufficient to demonstrate notability to the bar set by the above guideline or to pass WP:GNG. This isn't an easy one, but I'd argue in balance that the subject - as a translator - fails notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, and France. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Syria, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Firstly translators of this literary caliber are especially rare, actually, not "common," and there is a reason dozens and dozens of cultural institutions (universities, literary centers, leading newspapers and magazines, publishing houses, etc.) are working with, interviewing, and spotlighting Seale and her literary output. The first translation of the Nights was in the 18th century, yes perhaps, but people have been calling for better translations for decades (and centuries) given the historical importance of the text and the cultural politics that have always been embedded in amalgamating and translating it. In other words, "first translation" is not the only notable one, and Seale's translation is absolutely no small feat, and certainly not "common." Beyond this "single event," though, Seale is notable more broadly for other work and not just as translator for the Nights--when creating this article, I took into account the general notability guideline of reliable secondary sources and the clear evidence of significant coverage (beyond ArabLit Quarterly's website, references also included Harper's Magazine, London Review of Books, Columbia University, and World Literature Today, to be clear, and could have included more) and she passes the following tests for Notability of Creative Professionals: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". She as a translator—not just her individual works—will be discussed for decades in the global field of Arabic literature and Arabic translation. Jackie.salzinger (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE - multiple works have been the primary subject of multiple reviews and articles, e.g. The Annotated Arabian Nights: The Economist, The New Yorker, The Guardian; Aladdin: Kirkus, Publishers Weekly; On the Road: New York Review of Books; and there is an in-depth interview with secondary context in World Literature Today. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are not her works, but works she has translated. As have many, many others. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add this to my comment in the Aladdin section: The Guardian, and I think a source like this helps show how Seale is a notable translator, in addition to the other sources cited above that directly discuss her translations as independent works: "The French-Syrian translator Yasmine Seale is the first woman to translate the whole of One Thousand and One Nights from its French and Arabic sources, and the first to produce an Aladdin since researchers have cleared up the mystery of the much-loved tale’s origins." These works become her works because of her translation, which is an art form. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo in 2019 also notes for Aladdin, i.e. "in Yasmine Seale’s excellent recent edition from Norton, the princess inherits the throne but “shares her power” with Aladdin", and in 2021, her version of Arabian Nights, i.e. "In general, Seale’s Englishing of “Alf Layla wa-Layla”— “The Thousand Nights and a Night” — redresses the 19th-century’s Orientalizing bent and occasional racism, while also reminding us that women, and not just Scheherazade, are at the heart of these wonderful stories." Beccaynr (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Arabian Nights, there is also Gulf News, e.g. "Through Seale’s sparkling, visually rich translation and Horta’s opulent annotations one is exposed to splendorous storytelling grounded in the culture from where it originated minus its ethnographic lens", and a review in The Wall Street Journal. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the specific language in WP:CREATIVE#3 is The person has created or played a major role in co-creating..., which the reviews help demonstrate she has done with her translations. Beccaynr (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per Beccaynr. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jackie.salzinger & Beccaynr, and noting that literary translators are not actually all that common. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - we can't state that the entire profession of translator is non-notable. Translation studies is a substantial academic discipline, and especially this kind of literary translation of classical works that require not only linguistic but also extensive historical and cultural knowledge is rare. There are a lot of reliable sources substantially discussing Seale's work. Lijil (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the consensus in this discussion, plus improvements to the article since nomination. Just wanted to point to an example of an ultra-notable literary translator, for anyone who may not be as familiar with the field: the late Gregory Rabassa, American literary translator most famous for translating the works of Gabriel García Márquez into English, whose craft is explained in this The New York Times article ("widely considered one of the foremost translators of any kind in the world"); The Guardian obituary (praised by Gabriel García Márquez "for rendering his novel in English as better than the original"); The Paris Review blog ("brought a new respect to the art of translation and new attention to translators"); it goes on and on. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2022 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proof-of-time[edit]

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

Contested prod. I could not find any usable sources. Current sources are:

Thompson, David (25 July 2022). "Proof Of Time Explained - Is This The Next Big Thing?". TechTimes.

TechTimes appears to be a native advertising outfit with no indication of editorial oversight. "David Thompson" published a dozen stories a week, and the website's about page brags about having an office "in the heart of downtown New York City" but it's just a virtual office. The site's editor, "Agatha Hicks", doesn't appear to exist.

Drescher, Daniel (16 March 2017). "Using the Blockchain". Blockchain Basics. Springer. pp. 222–223.

This book was published in 2017, and per Google Books, the cited chapter makes no mention of "proof-of-time". This concept appears to be newer than this, although it's hard to tell, since sources seem more focused on hype than on actual information.

"Proof-of-Time vs Proof-of-History - What Is the Difference? | HackerNoon". hackernoon.com. Retrieved 2022-10-11.

HackerNoon is a blogging platform with a pro-crypto bent. It is not usable without attribution and is useless for showing notability. It is also misused, as it doesn't mention anyone named "Victor Young"

Elasrag, Hussein. Blockchain for Islamic Finance. Hussein Elasrag.

This book appears to be WP:SPS Amazon kindle spam. Not usable at all.

Grayfell (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Gertruda Low: who de-prodded and added some of these sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Gertruda Low (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find sources that are basically a DICDEF; as discussed above, most of what's used is non-RS. This appears that it could be promotional, but I'm not sure what they are selling. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the concept is interesting, and I also cannot see any promotion. The sources could be better. Leaning toward mild keep. Possibly notable topic. Gertruda Low (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article will still need reliable sources though, and those sources will need to specifically discuss this concept in some depth. The sources you added were not usable for this, as explained above. Your personal point of view on the concept has no baring on this, instead we need reliable sources to explain why it is interesting. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell I totally agree with you. I've reconsidered the case, and now I'm leaning towards mild delete. Gertruda Low (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There seems to be an influx of obscure dictionary definition pages about cryptocurrency terms. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's not a dictionary term, but more about a concept. The page has not perfect sources, but those available are enough to overpass original research warning I suppose. --71.95.10.187 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2022 (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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for an Independent Britain[edit]

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

This article makes no claim for notability in its current sources under either WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CLUB as a non-commercial organisation. The current source is a letter by a former official and clearly fails. I searched for independent and reliable sources and found none that I could confirm give it significant coverage. All were trivial mentions of it or of what appears at best to be its Oxford chapter. I did find one that could potential mention it, but it is behind a pay wall. In any case one source would not be enough and thus this article ought to be deleted. I nominated rather than proposed as I expect it to could be controversial given the recent pattern of COI and POV editing. Jtrrs0 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Europe, and United Kingdom. Jtrrs0 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure they've already left the EU? The article badly needs a re-write. The name of this "organization" comes up as a few people want to set up a Brexit museum. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An UPE tried to update it but it was so promotional I reverted it all without second thought. Madeline (part of me) 19:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The CIB was the institutional successor to the No Campaign in the 1975 EEC referendum. It kept going from then until the 2016 referendum, from the aftermath of the 1975 until UKIP was formed it was probably the major outwardly "leave" pressure group. It's pretty small now but it was an important player in its time. JASpencer (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating it, I imagined this to be the case and that I might be able to find sources to show notability this way, presuming that an older campaign group like this one would have received sufficient independent and reliable coverage. I didn't find anything thus I nominated it. I'd obviously be be happy to re-consider my view if you have any new sources I failed to find. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Initial search on Newspapers.com for "Campaign for an Independent Britain" (in quotes) generates 437 matches. Even if the majority of those get thrown out, it seems likely there are a few more in-depth articles in there that confer notability. I can't say this is a priority for me but in case it's helpful, I've clipped a couple of articles from The Telegraph (1996) and The Independent (1997 opinion piece). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this it is really helpful. I had a look at these two articles and I think they do not themselves qualify, the Telegraph one is trivial in regards to CIB, it essentially notes its existence and that they held a meeting on a particular day in a particular place, but the article really is covering another phenomenon. The opinion piece is a little more borderline regarding whether it is significant coverage but it is clearly unreliable per WP:RSEDITORIAL. This follows a pattern that I have thus far seen for articles, they either trivially name drop CIB or are more borderline but are either non-independent or unreliable. I'll keep trawling through Newspapers.com, though. Thanks again. Jtrrs0 (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JASpencer. We are working on this page and any pointers are gratefully received. JackLions (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We are working on this page"?? Oh, really.....? And who, pray tell, might "we" be? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iteration of the original 1976 Safeguard Britain Campaign, which became the British Anti-Common Market Campaign in 1983 and subsequently the CIB in 1989. Passes the GNG.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Cook, Chris (9 September 2014). Longman Companion to Britain Since 1945. Routledge. p. 267. ISBN 978-1-317-87995-4.
^ Jones, Alistair (7 March 2016). Britain and the European Union. Edinburgh University Press. p. 201. ISBN 978-1-4744-1179-0.
^ Spiering, Menno (2004). "British Euroscepticism". Euroscepticism: party politics, national identity and European integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 129. doi:10.1163/9789401201087_007. ISBN 9789401201087.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MD Marketing Digital[edit]

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

None of the sources used in the article satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the sources are just statements of the CEO of the company, or opinion/statement of the company about things. There is no in-depth coverage about the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The article also seems to be an advertisement, and has been previously deleted through G11. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Blatchford[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I requested speedy deletion as the creator and primary author of this page, but that request was removed. Any further discussion can take place here. Her only past position, chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development does not confer notability per WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 18:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, can you explain more fully what happened? The subject was a nominee for a federal job but has just withdrawn. You created the page more than a year ago, presumably believing that the person was notable. Are you saying that she's now not notable because she didn't get the job? JMWt (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have used an informal rule that a Senate-confirmed position confers notability. Because her nomination was withdrawn, we are left to evaluate her other position. When I created the page, I assumed that her nomination would result in more mentions in reliable sources. His has not occurred and the sourcing here remains weak. Novemberjazz 18:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. That informal rule could probably stand to be reevaluated. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 19:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete withdrawal from a gov't appointed position isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I strongly suspect withdrawal from a position like this might sometimes be notable, but it would depend very significantly (maybe entirely) on the circumstances of that withdrawal and reliable sources' (coverage of the) reaction to it. The circumstances in this case do not appear to confer notability. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one source about her nomination with SIGCOV but nothing else. Appears to lack notability. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 11 October 2022 (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. Sufficient consensus here for deletion notwithstanding the discussion was started by a sock. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheera Jasvir[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian singer, article sourced to local website/his employer. Fails WP:GNG uncontroversially. Nasir Chaudhry (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are links to his lyric videos. Long way from notability for use here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Doesn't meets WP:GNG Contributor008 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not speak for itself as to general notability, and the references are not independent and secondary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2022 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kanan[edit]

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

Adding incompleted AfD on behalf of anon user. Contested PROD - IP's argument for deletion was "not notable, no citation proving notability" — Voice of Clam 18:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meets Wikipedia:Notability (politics) Contributor008 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stub. No evidence of notability, just somebody with a job near some notable people. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:23, 18 October 2022 (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 keep. Consensus is strong that it still meets notability standards years after. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 18:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free republic of liberland

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

The concerns I raised way back at Talk:Liberland/Archive 2 are unresolved to this day - this is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation, and we should replace it with a redirect to the border dispute article that can mention it in encyclopedic context, as opposed to promoting what seems to have been a frivolous publicity stunt of some sort by some politician. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, Croatia, and Serbia. Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regardless of whether this was a frivolous stunt or not (spoiler: it was), this particular microstate has received quite extensive coverage that still continues (for example, this article by RFE was written just a few months ago), showing that there is lasting significance. Curbon7 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is likewise treating it as a curiosity. Everything of any relevance is in quotes or marked as claims. That's not actual significant coverage. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the generated publicity (good PR-department), this wannabee micro-nation is not to be taken serious. This sounds more than a private hobby than a micronation-to-be. And with 0 (zero) inhabitants, it looks like not even the founder-president does not want to live there. The Banner talk 18:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article could probably stand to be cleaned up (and brought up-to-date) but I'm seeing sustained coverage of Liberland in its various forms in Radio Free Europe, Vice, QZ, and Domus among others. It's also the subject of a chapter in the book Radicals Chasing Utopia by Jamie Bartlett and has some sustained coverage in Invisible Countries by Joshua Keating, although I don't have access to the latter one to confirm the extent of that coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 19:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice's article mentions a third party commenting on it, an architect and instructor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, with a single paragraph of criticism. Is this supposed to be significant coverage? The QZ article is an interview with 3 people who are directly involved with Liberland. The Domus one likewise. I can't access the latter two, what do they say? Essentially, I'd say that just because some people keep pushing this idea and capture the fancy of the occasional reporter that doesn't explain why the encyclopedia should describe it in their terms. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Vice article is evidence of sustained coverage, yes. I'm not aware of any requirement that every individual source we use include more than a single paragraph of criticism - WP:BALANCE applies to us, not them. I don't agree with your interpretation of either QZ or Domus. Just because an article quotes somebody doesn't make it an interview. Regardless, there's plenty of other coverage going further back from NYT, BBC, The Verge, The Atlantic, Reason, Washington Post, NBC, and others (plenty of which are already cited in the article). If your problem with the article is that we shouldn't describe it in their terms, that's a content and copy-editing issue, not a notability one. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a high enough standard for the encyclopedia as most of these articles are from 2015 and 2016, when this thing was really novel, and there's a single example from 2022 from a website that doesn't seem to be a particularly relevant secondary source. I don't think this matches the letter and spirit of WP:SUSTAINED. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the article shouldn't be restructured to focus more on the actual idea of Liberland and how people have tried to manifest it in multiple different ways over about a decade - It should be! AndyTheGrump said this really well in a comment below. Fundamentally, though, that's a content issue and not a notability issue. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the sources include the New York Times and the BBC, talking about this place. Did I miss something? That's about as top notch as we can hope for in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does a handful of instances of "talking about" equal WP:SIGCOV? I could access the BBC News link and one of them quotes Jedlicka, while the other one describes it using quotes in a handful of paragraphs that go into little detail. I'm not sure if my original mention of WP:NOT#NEWS was noticed, so I've repeated it again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole article about the place in the New York Times, the first four or five citations in the article seem fine. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and an article in Liberation (France), [1]. You have at least two quality sources in some of the best newspapers in each country. That's more than enough to be kept here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD nominator also listed Verdis, a neighbouring micronation for deletion MicroSupporter (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The micronation is notable and has enough coverage for its own article, just like the other one. These AfD’s are clearly being made out of WP:BIAS. MicroSupporter (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I heard Joshua Keating talking about this on a national radio program. It seemed notable, so I came here expecting an article with more information. -- Beland (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article and mentioned above demonstrate sustained coverage since 2015. NOTNEWS does not apply IMO. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with the nominator's assertion that this is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation. Agree with the assessments of ThadeusOfNazereth, Oaktree b, and others that there is sufficient WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons everyone else has stated. I was at first leaning towards deleted, but after reading into other people's votes, there seems to enough coverage of Liberland for it to warrant an article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is quite possibly true that there are sufficient sources to write an article about 'Liberland as a concept' - as an aspiration promoted by individuals. What isn't remotely justified, according to my understanding of WP:NPOV policy is the way this fringe aspiration is presented as an actual entity. The land in question has never, during the entire history of this supposed 'micronation', ever had a population above zero. And yet readers are prominently informed that the island has a 'Government', with a 'President', a 'Governor' etc. This is of course complete fantasy. They have no recognised authority over the island. And nor do they have any means whatsoever to assert any authority. 'President' Vít Jedlička is no more a president than Joshua Norton was an emperor. Wikipedia should not be repeating self-promotion as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yes, the whole thing seems to be some fantasy game. I recognize that the article will not be deleted, but the fantasy stuff should come out. Donald Albury 13:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Donald, thank you for your comment. As someone who has seen the "inside" of Liberland and has spoken to the leaders, including Vit Jedlicka, I can vouch that there is no aspect of a "fantasy game" here. Liberland attempts to found a country based on the principles of liberty, free market, free speech and ecologically sound living, on the no-man's land territory of Gornja Siga. While not having control over that land, due to Croatia's actions, Liberland has real-world and serious presence, such as the Ark Village, Visit Liberland and organizes events like the Floating Man or the Anniversary Cruise. Liberlanders feel a kinship towards each other similar to what members of other nations (with or without teritories) feel. The notable difference is the starting date, in case of most nations, prehistory or at least a few hundred years ago, in Liberland's, 2015. Should that make a difference in whether or not an aspiring State should have a Wikipedia page? Michalptacnik (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies regarding article content do not make allowances for unverifiable claims to 'kinship' amongst supporters of imaginary states. Or for other self-promotional claims coming from someone who appears to have created an account in order to declare themselves 'Minister of Justice' of said imaginary state. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liberland is notable enough for its own page, hoax, imaginary, real or not. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop following me around posting 'responses' to things I haven't said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As echoed by others, this article meets all the criteria for it to be kept (e.g., notability). This is no different than the article on Somaliland, for example. The point is to judge articles neutrally on the various criteria required for articles to be worthy of being featured on WP, not to judge them on personal opinions of whether one thinks it should exist or whether it is "fantasy" or "imaginary" (otherwise, should we also do AfDs on Palestine, Kosovo, or even Taiwan?). At the end of the day, WP is a purveyor of information, and this topic has been extensively noted and covered in reputable news sources elsewhere in order for it to at least have achieved the quality of notability to be featured on WP. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The comparison with Somalialand is absurd. Somalialand has a population of 5.7 million people. 'Liberland' has no population at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. Liberland reaches the notability requirements as said by almost everyone else in this AfD. Imaginary or not. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in following me around posting 'responses' to things I haven't said, I will report the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following you around at all? I have already taken part in this AfD and you followed me to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I !voted keep, but this rationale is absolutely nonsensical. Somaliland, Kosovo, etc., are actual real (if de facto) countries, with their own systems of governance, laws, populations, and all the other things that make a country a country (besides recognition ofc). Liberland is a micronation, with no governance, no laws, no population, and none of the other things that make a country a country. To be outwardly blunt: this is a fantasy created by an eccentric. I argued above that this does meet the merit of WP:GNG by the lasting breadth of coverage, but to equate Liberland with Palestine is intellectually dishonest. Curbon7 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The problem is that as soon as we use a "N reputable news sources with an article on something, regardless of quality => topic necessarily worthy of a standalone encyclopedia article" shortcut, it's a slippery slope into other shortcuts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberland seems to have laws, citizens according to its website (albeit not physically living on the land), passports, and as recently as a week ago, some sort of recognition from Colombia, Malawi, and Somaliland itself. If Somaliland is being considered a country, then I don't see how it's intellectually dishonest to give the same consideration to Liberland (unless the only criterion being considered is population). Getsnoopy (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. 70 references (see Liberland#References), including WaPo, NYT & BBC. I find this AfD both frivolous and absurd. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 19:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of those? For example, the latest WaPo article cited concludes with the paragraph But in a phone call Saturday after the party, the president of Liberland was happy. “I don't think [the trip] has changed much, but it has been another step forward in terms of promoting Liberland,” he said. “We got very nice contacts that will be needed for the future of Liberland.”. These are not secondary sources on the matter, the press is reporting on a self-promoting phenomenon that seems to be amusing them. Encyclopedic coverage of the matter should not have to involve perpetuating this promotion with standalone articles that look like country articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Liberland is known for using fake news in their propaganda (http://sombor-blog.de/how-liberland-abuses-refugees-and-fools-the-world/) and taking advantage of the refugee crisis as mentioned in the article. But they have enough reliable and independent sources, incl. the most recent book "Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty" from prof. Harry Hobbs. Interested in micronations for several years now, I'm not a fan of Liberland, but this page meets all the requirements Delle89 (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Indisputably one of the most notable micronations, meets WP:N, dozens of references, and continued media coverage. Seungri400 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Notable proposed state, with a reasonable pathway towards independence and lots of media articles. DominusVilicus (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"with a reasonable pathway towards independence" Well that's not true in the slightest. Curbon7 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2022 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caryn Ann Harlos[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic content. May fail WP:BASIC. Also applicable:WP:NOT, WP:PROMO. As mentioned on the article’s talk page, it appears that many of the edits may have been performed by the subject of the article and possible affiliates. WP:COISELF. RegularH (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Libertarianism, and Colorado. Curbon7 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: RegularH is a single-purpose account and has edited no other articles outside this subject area. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: There are a lot of sources here, but around half of them are primary sources like convention minutes, various LP websites, tweets, and a couple LP-affiliated wikis. Of the non-primary sources, the vast majority are one-line mentions quoting Harlos as a spokesperson for the LP and do not represent in-depth coverage of Harlos herself. The only sources that I think pass the scrutiny test for notability are the Denver Post, Parliamentarians, and The Colorado Independent, but even that stretches it a bit. Overall, Harlos appears to be involved in some capacity with a few notable things, but doesn't seem to be notable herself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 18:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete as above, she's basically a political candidate in a small, fringe party. She's gotten mentions in the press, but nothing out of the ordinary. I think if we had one or more substantial stories about her, she might pass GNG. I couldn't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ThadeusOfNazereth. Not enough significant WP:RS-compliant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NPOL and WP:10YT. Sal2100 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator said. Contributor008 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. A huge percentage of the article relies on primary sources which is never a good sign for a BLP. 64.43.158.192 (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article needs massive cleanup and any COI accounts engaging in disruptive actions on the article need to be blocked, but AFD is not cleanup and I think there is barely enough to get over the GNG hump. Smartyllama (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources you think are particularly good? I think the vast majority are unusable as spokesperson comments, but it's possible I missed something for sure - There's a lot there. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[3] seems to be pretty significant, and when combined with the others, I think it's barely enough to get over GNG. That being said, the article needs a lot of work. Smartyllama (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be significant. I still think I lean delete only because it's a local profile - If it were national it'd be enough for me. The tide might shift though! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westword is a local-based alternative news publication, not a RS, so it wouldn't seem to apply towards establishing notability.174.206.42.214 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2022 (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 History of the FIFA World Cup. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup final draw[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate hub of trivial statistics; see WP:NOTSTATS. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the FIFA World Cup, where this kind of information can be covered in prose. Giant Snowman 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the FIFA World Cup. This current article violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:TRIVIA, as it's not useful to know what lettered group every team has been in- as the group letters are random and as such being e.g. in group B in 2 World Cups has very little outcome on the event itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or just flat out delete. The fact that, for example, Sweden have been drawn in Group C five times is utterly trivial and of no significance whatsoever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, perhaps to the section "Evolution of the format". This article violates WP:NOTSTATS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE; I think this particular term is used widely enough to justify a redirect (though would not oppose straight deletion), and though I'm unsure where pertinent information is found in the target, that's a problem beyond the scope of this AfD. ^Complex/_Rational 02:51, 15 October 2022 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushal Vyas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO (and WP:NACTOR) by a very long way; I can find no significant coverage that would contribute towards notability, even in local sources. Java Hurricane 17:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mooonswimmer 18:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG,WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2022 (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 John Forbes Nash Jr.. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal money[edit]

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

Most of the article consists of quotes from primary sources and the topic itself has a very marginal place in the economics literature.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Forbes Nash Jr., where it is mentioned already with a more reliable source. The cited source is the only one I could find. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Redirect suggestion above. Not notable idea to keep it separately from it's author. --Gertruda Low (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Forbes Nash Jr., per Presidentman and Gertruda Low, as a viable ATD. Sal2100 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure). Reading Beans (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Reading Beans (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Thakera Publishing House[edit]

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

Iraqi Arabic language publisher, while locally notable and laudable, fails WP:NORG and, ultimately, WP:GNG. Arguably past the bar for Arwiki, not for Enwiki. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, and Iraq. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Article is meet the WP:GNG & WP:NORG. And there are many resources that insure the notablility as internationally (not locally) as in the next resources:

Al Jazeera Media Network which is internationally media resource founded from Qatar (not Iraqi (local) resource) and it talks about one of the international edition wich was published by Al-Thakera Publishing House. Another independent and notable resorce wich was Youm7, Sada El-Balad and El Fagr these 3 resources are an Egyptian newspapers and journals that insure the internationally notable of Al-Thakera Publishing House. Secondly, Maysalun Hadi was nominated for the Arabic Booker Prize by a book published by Al-Thakera Publishing House. Also Hadia Hussein who are an author in Al-Thakera Publishing House and was nominated for the Arabic Booker Prize and have an international books one of them translated to English and the other was translated to Serbian. The 3rd point is that I don’t know how you judge that this organisation is accept in Ar Wiki and is not in En Wiki! Be sure that all the articles in Ar wiki must meet the notablility criteria to be accepted, and I think you have creat a lot of article of UAE community here in En Wiki??!!!! So why you translate or published these Arabic articles here as you saw that Arabic article is sutable only in Ar Wiki!! Finally from the above-mentioned, I think the Article meet the criteria of WP:GNG & WP:NORG. Thanks a lot, My greetings Dr. Mustafa Ahmed (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also rather bemused by the nominator's claim that this might get past the bar for the Arabic Wikipedia but not for the English. Are notability guidelines really that different? There is certainly nothing in the notability guidelines at English Wikipedia that even remotely suggests that we discriminate based on where the subject is located or what language it most often uses. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AUD states that while only local sources are not an indication of notability, having at least one regional or international source can be. Al Jazeera is certainly an international source, and Dr. Mustafa Ahmed explains others in his comment above.

Lijil (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2022 (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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sarina Esmailzadeh[edit]

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

This is not notable, neither as an event nor as a person. Except for the Guardian, I could not find good and reliable sources. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very unlikely to be true. I don't speak Persian, but it is quite easy to find sources about this person and this incident 1 and 2 and 3 plus more in English 4 and 5

I'm not claiming that all of the contents of these articles agree with each other or are necessarily reliable sources. But the person and the incident has attracted notability well beyond one English language media source. JMWt (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable and high-quality sources, not the likes of Harfetaze (worse than British tabloids). 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you said there were no sources. In the space of 2 minutes I found at least 5. We can discuss individual sources and whether they can be cited on Wikipedia later, but it is clear that the person and the event is widely noted, far beyond the British media that you first claimed. JMWt (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said "I could not find good and reliable sources". Please see WP:RELIABLE. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that the BBC is not a reliable source to be used for assessing notability, are you? JMWt (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is good. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in light of that I suggest you should WP:WDAFD and WP:SK. And perhaps familiar yourself with how to make proper checks before nomination. JMWt (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I stand by my nomination as that BBC Persian source says nothing more than the reporting of the denial of her killing by the Iranian authorities. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability shown by Guardian and BBC articles (and a lot of others in Persian). JMWt (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Guardian, BBC and TRT are three reliable sources covering this tragic event Mujinga (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing that BBC Persian and TRT (which is not that reliable) say about this person is just reporting the denial of her killing by the Iranian authorities and attributing her death to suicide (the Iranian authorities' claim), which may be true or false. By writing articles so early about such topics Wikipedia has been turned into a site for hosting claims, rumors, and misinformation, not facts. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do consider TRT reliable - I know that only because I had a reason to look it up recently. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says "Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough." Mujinga (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your point of view is understandable, but using the same argument, we should not have a page about Death of Mahsa Amini, because the circumstances of her death are also still disputed. Regardless, the cocerned page is not titled "Killing of Sarina Esmailzadeh", but "Death of Sarina Esmailzadeh" as an event that attracted enough attention to have notability and warrant its own article. The page is reporting the events from both perspectives, based on the available sources. Also, reliable coverage of this topic exist in languages other than English (in addition to the aforementioned), such as in German wdr.de, zeit.de, in Potuguese dw.com/pt-br, in French lemonde.fr, etc etc.-- Ideophagous (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not comparable with Death of Mahsa Amini as that event has sparked a lot of protests and has a protracted aftermath and cannot be ignored. But this one did not and most probably will never have any consequences or significant aftermath. It's just another death among many others (at least 100 people have been killed so far in Iran). 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's a death among 185 reported so far that has attracted enough attention to be reported by major news outlets in multiple languages. There are only 4 or 5 such deaths during these events that attracted similar or more attention including Mahsa's (see also Death of Nika Shakarami and Death of Hadis Najafi). So it's definitely not like the other 180+ deaths, which have remained nameless, or only reported by name in primary sources such as Amnesty or IHR. Secondly, we had Death of Mahsa Amini article way before the protests became very significant, on the basis of the widescale coverage by media, not because of the consequences of the death itself, which were still unecertain at the time. There have been incidents that were covered on Wikipedia such as Death of Julen Roselló and Death of Rayan Aourram, due to their widescale media coverage, even though they have largely been forgotten by now, and had no significant consequences.-- Ideophagous (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is different. There is no doubt that Najafi was killed during the protests. There is also no doubt that Shakarami was a protester (although the relation of her death to the protests is disputed). But regarding Esmailzadeh, it's not even clear that she was indeed a protester. There are too much rumors, claims and misinformation on the air right now. For example, her mother (which ArabNews strangely claims to be dead now+British tabloids) denied that her daughter was a protester. Of course, someone may claim this is a forced confession but Wikipedians have no means to verify any of these. Reliable and professional sources such as BBC do not involve themselves with such rumors or claims. The only thing that BBC says about this person is the reporting of the denial of her killing by the Iranian authorities. And we at the Wikipedia are supposed to take this piece of news as a sign of the notability of the event and write a stand-alone article on the most shaky foundations! No surprise that the final result may be just a mishmash of claims, rumors, and misinformation.

All in all, the narratives about this person are fishy. You are definitely a well-meaning person and you may think that you are helping the Iranian women and the free circulation of information by writing an article about her death so early. But it may have the opposite effect if the whole story turns out to be just false. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out she was not a protestor and had committed suicide, we will update the article to say as much. I think it would still be notable regardless, based on the media coverage, even if she had been reported to have committed suicide from the get-go. Whether this helps or does a disservice to the protests in Iran is not Wikipedia's concern.-- Ideophagous (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This, exactly. The whole purpose of the notability criteria is that editors do not try to speculate as to what might or might not emerge from a developing news story but reflect what the professionals are reporting about it. The idea that we should not take something that the most reliable news sources are all reporting as notable is for the birds. JMWt (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How told you she committed suicide? the same government who killed Mahsa? The same government who killed Navid Afkari? 2A02:58:149:A800:B543:5712:6377:360C (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont get why you insist on saying that the death of Hadis, Nika and this girl is less important than Mahsa. All people have used their hashtags so it has to be informed. These girls got killed very dramatically even more dramatic than Mahsa. Instead of wasting your time judging whose

death is more important go watch what are people fighting for. The islamic republic wants to remove all these data in wikipedia and you are doing what they want to! 2A02:58:149:A800:B543:5712:6377:360C (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep a NPOV regarding this matter. The creation of an article is based on the topic's notability, not who or what faction will benefit or not from the publication of the article. Regardless, it seems most editors agree on the notability of this event.-- Ideophagous (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of the incident is very clear. Echoing what others had said, the coverage of her death is in The Guardian, BBC, CNN, DW, and Forbes. All are reliable news sources and all name her specifically. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CNN just mentions her name and this is far from coverage which is needed for notability. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one source. Forbes also reports it passing, but Aljazeera covered the topic signficantly enough. Technically, we only need one source with significant coverage for notability, but people above have posted at least 5 with non-trivial coverage, and that's not including Persian sources, in addition to primary sources like Amnesty and Iran Human Rights that gathered the data and created the initial report.-- Ideophagous (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is also further coverage from the Guardian: Iran: further protests announced after death of 16-year-old vlogger – video report, which supports the notability of the event; ITV also reports, and Teen Vogue offers context, as does Al Jazeera. The international coverage, reported effects on the current protests, and the developing nature of the news favors keeping this article, per the WP:EVENT guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability is clear. Her notability is increasing in media. Details of her life including her political views, family members, ethnicity, ... shall surely be published soon and could be added in article. She comes from Karaj, the same city where from the killed Azerbaijani Woman Hadis Najafi comes. Savalanni (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also looks notable to me. Fad Ariff (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notable per sources. ZEP55 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sources: How two teenagers became the new faces of Iran’s protests (Irish Times, Oct. 14, 2022, "Nika Shakarami and Sarina Esmailzadeh left their homes to join anti-regime demonstrations. They never returned"), Killing of another teenage protester gives Iran uprising a new symbol (Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2022). Both sources provide further secondary support for the WP:EFFECT of this event. Beccaynr (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As amply demonstrated by the sources in the article and mentioned here, Esmailzadeh's death has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 06:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fully notable article. Iranwatcher (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2022 (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. Mix of WP:BLPDELETE and WP:SNOW. Regarding the one non-delete !vote, article is copy-pasted from Lea Michele, so there's nothing to merge. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Michele controversy[edit]

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

This content can be covered in Lea Michele just fine. Also, per WP:CRITS, this sort of thing should be avoided. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Theatre. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRITS, with an added slice of BLP concerns. Madeline (part of me) 12:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lea Michelle article. I could see breaking this section out into another article if there was more to discuss, this is 1.5 paragraphs. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRITS and WP:RUMOR. An entire paragraph is devoted to a ridiculous rumor/joke, and the other paragraph is written non-neutrally with statements that take accusations as facts (so-and-so "confirmed" an accusation). -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly inappropriate WP:BLP content. Ovinus (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP and WP:NOTSCANDAL, e.g. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person, and WP:CRITS. The content, and the non-neutral language, is also included in the Lea Michele article in the Reception and public image section. Beccaynr (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to fix the Lea Michele article was responded to with the addition of more sources, including one that refers to its reporting as "gossip", and the restoration of content to the article that raises WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH concerns. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2022 (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 no consensus. The arguments to delete are generally weak. Coverage in other languages is certainly not precluded by policy, and the sources provided have not been refuted. On the other hand, NCORP is a higher bar than GNG, and unlike with most topics, the SNG takes precedence here; NCORP must be met. And I see no systematic evaluation of whether the sources meet it either. In my view this discussion has been heavily influenced by off-wiki conversations, to the point where policy-based consensus is likely to be difficult to achieve, so I'm closing this rather than relisting in the hope that a fresh discussion will be cleaner. If there is disruption from SPAs, I would recommend requesting protection on the article, and possibly for the AfD as well. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NovelAI[edit]

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

WP:NCORP: Lack of notability as a company outside of primary and Japanese sources and has no significant coverage (the article uses Twitter and the company's website as sources); WP:PROMOTION because a number of other similar commercial AI subscription services exist and have been mentioned in TechCrunch/Newswire (which this article heavily relies on as their only secondary sources) and yet this is the only one that has an article and ostensibly does not do anything particularly groundbreaking or notable (c.f. Stable Diffusion or 15.ai, which are notable); lack of citations for numerous claims and significant WP:OR; potential WP:COI due to suspicious activity when AfD/proposed deletion tags were placed on the article.

It should also be noted that there is a very large amount of WP:SPA going on with the article. Users Noble93, Cebbec78 (potentially a WP:SOCK of Noble93 due to the same naming pattern) are some editors who have created a Wikipedia account just to make edits to this one article, as well as IP accounts from 93.239.148.132, 94.22.206.174, 175.159.124.34, 2a02:9b0:802d:79d6:70f8:b154:b749:d7eb whose only edits are for this one article. The whole article reeks of blatant WP:PROMOTION with not-so-hidden efforts to conceal this using multiple accounts.

Throwaway21239 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Likely meets WP:GNG based on third-party coverage in Japanese and Taiwanese news sources such as Yahoo! News Japan and United Daily News; WP:NONENG states that while English-language sources are preferred on the English Wikipedia, citing non-English sources is still allowed. As a native Chinese speaker and intermediate Japanese speaker, I can provide translations if requested. I'd also like to point out that the page receives just under 2,000 pageviews per day, so clearly someone is searching for it, although that isn't evidence of notability in itself. If there are WP:OR, WP:PROMOTION or WP:COI concerns, these issues can potentially be resolved by any editors who wish to clean up the article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
>I'd also like to point out that the page receives just under 2,000 pageviews per day, so clearly someone is searching for it, although that isn't evidence of notability in itself.

It should be noted that the NovelAI was previously included under the "See also" pages for the very popular DALL-E and Midjourney articles, which would explain the viewcounts per day. The references have since been removed from those pages, so it would be of interest to see the subsequent change in pageviews per day. Throwaway21239 (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the links on 9 October, but the page views were still high on 10 October, so there’s probably an offsite link bringing people to the article. And these people are likely already interested in NovelAI, and so will often want to make some change to the article. And most won’t have Wikipedia accounts, so we get lots of edits by IPs and new single-purpose accounts. There’s nothing suspicious about this. (And by the way, it looks a bit odd for someone with a single-purpose account to complain about other people using single-purpose accounts.) --Zundark (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I did suggest to the nominator to create an account, since they mentioned on the article talk page that they were unable to start the AfD nom as an IP editor; they have had edits in the past. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. None of the WP:SIRS criteria seem to be met, and the article reads like a press release. As someone who has kept up with the AI landscape for years, I'd never heard of NovelAI before while I hear about Stable Diffusion nonstop, and it appears that NovelAI just uses a custom implementation of SD... How exactly is this any different from any of the other countless AI companies that offer similar services? — HackerKnownAs (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 14:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that NovelAI did exist long before Stable Diffusion, it was a mainly text gpt type service. AI landscape- you mean like image side and not language model? NAI was created as a directly respond to downfall-of-AI-dungeon. And also were involved in training a GPT-NeoX-20B, the biggest public-access language model, on the paper, not specifically the novelai itself, but its creator: Eren Doğa. Not to mention that anlatan(novelai) made a joint venture with CoreWeave, I would say coreweave are pretty important player in modern ai scene, after all, they make the public 20 billions model possible.

Anyway tho, it's true that I'm single purpose account. But what can I do? Most of us never touch wiki, it's only by the popularity in japan that someone decided to make a page for it. Depsite already existed for 1 and half years.

My counter point would be, if AI Dungeon page exist, then should the NovelAI. They are literally counterpart in the same audience. Everyone in ai-storytelling scene know about it, at least for attentive users anyway. It's usually AIdungeon, NovelAI, HoloAI, KoboldAI(open-source). This is our circle.

Also on the notable(stuff?), isn't the point of this page was that Japnness people were so mad and so atonshing that NovelAI mangaged to generate high-quailty anime-like ai image? That was the point.

I know 0 sh*t about how wiki work, so I'll leave that to the professional, and it's understable that you guys editor probably don't know much about text ai scene. But as contributor of it, this is what I had to say. And I'm pretty airhead if I were to edit this, I have no idea where to start...

Lack of citations... I gusses I kidda get that where came from. Because NAI and others-ai-text-service are pretty standalone venture, had specific audience. And nobody bother to do any publicity(service speak for itself) nor did the journalist wants to write on it or anything(not the most excited thing in the world.) Andddd public large language model aren't actually 'public'. They require $25,000 gpus to run, so only corporate can 'actually' run it. Which is why it's not boom like StableDifusion did. Thank to low-memory-architecture on difusion I suppose. Or maybe people just can't read, and were more excited on good picture. Pumegit (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oops wrong reply location, ehh Pumegit (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
>My counter point would be, if AI Dungeon page exist, then should the NovelAI.

See WP:WAX. The existence of an article of a similar topic does not make for an argument for keeping this article. It should also be noted (per WP:MEAT) that this user has made no edits outside of the discussion. Throwaway21239 (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between NovelAI and AI Dungeon is that the latter has an abundance of significant coverage (just check the references there) while the former struggles to try to meet the standards of notability. For example, the entire "Incidents" section relies on a single reference to a Twitter post made by NovelAI's account, which makes it an unreliable primary source (WP:RSPRIMARY). At best, there could be a mention of NovelAI in the article for Stable Diffusion, but as is, it clearly is not notable enough for its own article at this time. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, after talking to the developers and researchers. They don't like the wiki page as it is right now. It's quite inaccurate and don't really represent what NovelAI is. Image generation is just a side project and aren't suppose to take the main stage, because they are mainly text-generation/storytelling service. They don't mind having it remove.

I'll be taking a neutral stand now, it needs a ton of efforts(articles?) to make it actually represent NovelAI. In the mean time, the event of AI art debate in japan is quite large too, which is why this page was created to begin with. But that's not what NovelAI is. Pumegit (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The developers aren't supposed to "like" the Wikipedia article. They don't own the Wikipedia article, nor are they allowed to exert influence over the article content. If there are information gaps, it's up to third-party sources to pick up the slack. Have them go talk to tech journalists or something, complaining about the Wikipedia article being inaccurate when the sourcing simply isn't available is tantamount to just pounding sand. The image generation takes centre stage in the Wikipedia article because that's all the third-party sourcing ever talks about; even if the text generation models should be covered more, that simply cannot happen due to the reality that sourcing is utterly lacking in that area. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apology. I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia works. So they require third-party sources not the first-party themselves, I see. Pumegit (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, weak delete or delete and rewrite You say (I added some emphasis for certain parts of your rationale):
1. Lack of notability as a company outside of primary and Japanese sources and has no significant coverage (the article uses Twitter and the company's website as sources) I agree about the issue with primary sources but is there any policy against non-English sources?
2. WP:PROMOTION because a number of other similar commercial AI subscription services exist and have been mentioned in TechCrunch/Newswire (which this article heavily relies on as their only secondary sources) Flawed argument, but it is almost certainly promotion because of the way it is written.
3. and yet this is the only one that has an article and ostensibly does not do anything particularly groundbreaking or notable (c.f. Stable Diffusion or 15.ai, which are notable) I don't have a reliable source but going by my Google search results, NovelAI is pretty much the first company with a successful image generation model specifically for anime.
4. lack of citations for numerous claims and significant WP:OR; potential WP:COI due to suspicious activity when AfD/proposed deletion tags were placed on the article. Valid point.
FWIW, the IP editors you have named are operating from Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, and Saudi Arabia respectively. But given their editing history, they may be either different employees sockpuppeting for the company. Tube·of·Light 05:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the non-English sources, for the purpose of aiding with WP:V, I've translated a few citations into English. I have one thing I'd like to point out: One of the quotes use the word "おかしい", which if we're talking about literal dictionary definitions, would mean "strange", "suspicious", "weird"; however in the context of internet colloquial speech, it's actual real-world usage is more akin to "that's fucked up, bro", or "that's screwed up", "that's messed up". I've used a more closer-to-real-world translation for this sentence, but feel free to adjust it if anyone thinks it doesn't match the tone of an encyclopedia article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the current version. I think the coverage shown in the article more than meets GNG. Regarding Japanese sources, GNG can be met with articles in any language. The "significant coverage" does not have to be in English. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are some reliable Chinese news sources in the entry. --dqwyy (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Quoted from WP:MULTSOURCES:

"Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area."

Despite being a U.S. tech start-up from a metropolitan area, nearly all of the sources listed are from non-English sources, which indicates that the company is not notable in the English-speaking business world. Non-English sources may be sufficient to establish WP:GNG as pointed out above, but quoted from WP:ORGCRIT:

"These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article."

Right now, the Wikipedia article is written like a promotional piece: an excessive number of weak sources to try to substantiate the Wikipedia article per WP:TOOMANYREFS while not saying much about the company at all. It evidently does not meet notability standards for companies and organizations as outlined in WP:ORGCRIT. Moreover, quoted from WP:SIRS:

"Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO."

Several sources listed in the Wikipedia article seem to discuss NovelAI, but reading through the actual sources themselves, many of them discuss AI-generated anime art in general, not the company specifically, and only offer fleeting mentions of NovelAI for only a few sentences. A single-sentence mention in an article about a related topic or company is not significant coverage. When you take all of this into consideration and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Wikipedia article pointed out above, it does look likely that this is simply another case of an AI/crypto company trying to promote their business by putting themselves on Wikipedia.

I'd like to comment that maybe there should be a separate stricter notability standard for AI companies than WP:NCORP, like WP:NCRYPTO which is used for cryptocurrency projects. There has been a lot of AI companies that have tried to put themselves on Wikipedia recently that rely on numerous sketchy sources and have clear COI violations, and so it might not be a bad idea to have something similar to NCRYPTO for AI, seeing as how the two seem to overlap frequently. UnstableDiffusion (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources such as Kai-you, Sohu, ITmedia News, Gigazine, United Daily News, 4Gamers, Gamespark, FayerWayer, and Real Sound describe and discuss in depth NovelAI service or company, in terms of quality as well as quantity. Some non-English sources are cited in translation, which may improve WP:VERIFY, but in principle even translation may not be necessary.--Kainioaefa (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe the company behind NovelAI is a U.S.-based company, but considering its image generator mainly targets Anime/Manga-styled artworks, it is not that strange to have more media coverage from East Asian countries, where the preference for such illustrations much higher compared to the West. From the technical PoV, perhaps NovelAI's image generator is not that remarkable something (as they just took a F/OSS AI model Stable Diffusion and trained it with images taken from Danbooru), but the quality of anime style images it can generate is quite impressive (as User:benlisquare mentioned earlier) and that's why it got such sudden spotlights from beforementioned regions. I can't agree that it doesn't meet WP:GNG just because the sources are not in English. --ParanScreen (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found out why this discussion seems to be full of WP:MEAT. A direct link to this AfD discussion was posted in NovelAI's public Discord server twice: once in the #no-mic and once in the #novelai-discussion channels. The link has been sitting there as the latest post in the #no-mic channel since October 12 (direct link to the posts in question post 2). This is a pretty obvious WP:COI and explains all the WP:PROMO and WP:SPA editing present here and in the article.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

Screenshot 3: one of the developers of NovelAI commenting that this AfD is likely to be rejected, two days after the link was posted in the server

Throwaway21239 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I voted for Keep, but I didn't do it at someone's request or saw this article on a forum somewhere. This article continues to record a high number of views exceeding 1,000 times since the day after it was created.(pageviews) You yourself also have no edit history other than this article, so I don't think it's hard to imagine that.--Kainioaefa (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised to create a throwaway account specifically to create this nomination, as I prefer editing anonymously over using an account. Besides, my edit history has nothing to do with the suspicious activity of all the once-inactive accounts mysteriously making their first edits in years only after the link was posted in the Discord server. Even without the screenshots, WP:MEAT should be suspected.

If you notice from the graph you linked, the number of hits sharply decreased when the links were removed from the See also sections of the popular articles mentioned above, and continues to decrease every day. The number was cited as high as 2,000 times per day back then, but now that it's been cut in half in just a few days, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Throwaway21239 (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's me. As of right now, I'm not defending the article, nor do I explicitly want it delete. I already express my opinion above. Most developers agree with the deletion. Your screenshot is misleading. And WP:MEAT is not true, there is no one from the NovelAI group here beside me. And I barely touch anything besides correcting the launch date.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2 Pumegit (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not voting one way or another, but if there is consensus to delete, I think draftifying would be more appropriate as the majority of the article is about NovelAI's image generation, which was only released on October 3rd, so this could be a WP:TOOSOON situation, and if the subject isn't notable now, it may be after more coverage. Waxworker (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mi9 Retail[edit]

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

This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability as they rely entirely on PR and company announcements. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Florida. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, it does not meet WP:NCORP. – The Grid (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024 in professional wrestling[edit]

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

Fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. One or two events scheduled for years from now don't make an article suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked around and I couldn't find anything that would make this article notable. Fails WP:TOOSOONDr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kristall Smolensk[edit]

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

not notable, unbiased, basically an advertisment page 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interview with the CEO and one article from 2017 about a diamond they sold are about all I see for this company. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany[edit]

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

A poorly sourced WP:POVFORK (obvious in my opinion I’m applying Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view) of existing article on the subject which is Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Multiple other issues, including already mentioned serious POV problem, are outlined as well (see tags). GizzyCatBella🍁 15:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a blatant POVFORK of Ukrainian Insurgent Army#Germany, designed to whitewash the UIA's massacres and genocidal tendencies. Even if eventually a split from the main article could be countenanced it would not be under this title, and the present text is such a dumpster fire that WP:TNT applies in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Nothing more needed to be said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon (1982 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Current refs are questionable routine databases and I could found nothing on Google, JSTOR or Newspapers.com per WP:BEFORE that demonstrates notability. VickKiang (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, i's just an infobox 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2006toyotacorrola if you are voting delete, please format your comment the same way I did to make it easier for closing admin MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i am voting deletw 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of sourcing means the article does not meet NFILM. This caught my attention as a reviewer.MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Sack[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO not notable according to sources in article.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
New York Times	WP:NYTIMES	WP:NYTIMES	Coverage of his death	✔ Yes
Curber	~ Source is mostly focused on lifestyle material couldn't find anything that said they were independent	~ Articles are mostly about lifestyle issues, was hard to really pin this down	Mentioned only in passing	✘ No
Yale University Library	~ I know from personal experience that if you donate something like this to a library they don't just take it for free. The family or company probably had to pay to at least maintain the collection	it's a university library from a regionally accredited institution so I'm going to assume it's reliable	~ Mentions that Sack created an archive at the library but does not give any detail about him.	~ Partial
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)).

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are two more sources entirely about Sack. One in Antiques & the Arts Weekly [4] and the other in Antiques [5] Thriley (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes: what do you think? There are certainly more sources out there about him. these are just ones that came up after a quick search. Thriley (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this https://www.afanews.com/home/item/486-albert-sack-first-and-last although what was already found is convincing enough. Dream Focus 13:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources listed above are enough for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the multiple and extensive obituaries, any two of which (including an NYT obit!) makes this an WP:BASIC pass. This source also looks interesting. FOARP (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly influential in the field of American antiques and collecting, significant coverage in independent published sources, meets WP:BASIC. His book Fine Points of Early American Furniture was reviewed in The William and Mary Quarterly and The Wisconsin Magazine of History so he might meet WP:AUTHOR too. Article does need cleanup and expansion but lacks basis for deletion. Topshelver (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Agree with the overwhelming consensus. Passes the criteria of WP: GNG with flying colors. Although the article needs quite a bit of work. KlayCax (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a close and keep. An overwhelming consensus now seems clear. KlayCax (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMHO WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC are easily met, The New York Times is definitely RS, Antiques (magazine), Antiques and the Arts Weekly and American Federation of Arts are SIGCOV and cited/discussed by other RS with WP articles so are likely reliable as well. This might weakly meet WP:NAUTHOR as well given the two reviews. VickKiang (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep revisions to the article have addressed my concerns about WP:NBIO and sources have enough to pass now. Thanks for all the work every put into this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:16, 12 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewan Riko[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. MarioGom (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Businesspeople, and Denmark. MarioGom (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshleyFredo. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. Eligible for G5 deletion, but I'll let this play out. MER-C 09:03, 15 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extremus Versicherung[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NCORP, the only coverage available seems to come from either directory listings or trade publications. the German article cites a couple books, but on further inspection these consist of a bachelor's thesis and something published by a trade publishing house, meaning both are not reliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Business, and Germany. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, No inherent notability nor good reliable secondary sources.

Melancholyhelper (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Torner[edit]

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

In the absence of non-trivial coverage, “president of the Moldovan biathlon federation” does not really strike me as being notable under WP:ATHLETE. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Moldova. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources provide no evidence of notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2022 (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 keep. Given this is the consensus of the participants and recent improvements to this article, I'm closing this discussion as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Gargan[edit]

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

Lenghy piece about a minor comic book villain, with zero evidence of notability - it's just a plot summary, publication history and list of appearances in other media, with zero reception section. My BEFORE fails to find anything other than plot summaries. See also related (still ongoing AfD) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scorpion (Marvel Comics)‎ . I suggest redirecting this to List of Spider-Man enemies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.★Trekker (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but most if not all of these fail WP:SIGCOV. It's just a list of sources that mention this character, many in passing, and most of the discussion is limited to plot summaries; the best sources are simply a coverage of social medial complaint by the actor who portrayed the character in one movie that he wasn't given a chance to appear in a sequel. This is as niche as itr gets. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming this subject is as "niche as it gets" is utterly ridiculous.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the existence of significant coverage. Also, this character isn't even minor. Dark knight 2149 04:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would, however, support merging Scorpion (Carmilla Black) into this page. That page should have been nominated instead. Dark knight 2149 04:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you consider putting that in List of Marvel Comics characters: S instead? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments, and noting recent improvements to the sourcing on the article. BOZ (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say this is the most significant Marvel/DC character nominated for deletion in recent years. Anyone interested in Spiderman or Marvel villains is going to want to know information on this character so deleting this does not benefit the reader. I'm mostly fine with the sources presented above; I recognize my standards for GNG may be lower than the rest of the community and that is fine. There was a Scorpion (Marvel Comics) article this this and all other similar characters could have potentially been merged with but it was essentially deleted after being brought to AFD. Then there is a redirect/merge to a List of Marvel comics characters but to me a character of this significance should not be on that list. So I'm left with Keep. There are certainly minor comics characters whose articles can be deleted or redirect, but this is not one of them. Rhino131 (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @StarTrekker:, @BOZ:, and @Rhino131: --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created a "Reception" section and tried to add more sources few days ago. I am convinced this page succeeds to be notable. In my opinion, if this page gets deleted, many pages should be deleted as well, which would not make sense because a page with a few secondary and several primary sources can still manage to be notable. I do not believe hundreds of secondary sources are necessary to create/keep a page on Wikipedia. But in the case of the article named Mac Gargan, I sincerely think there are enough sources. Higher Further Faster (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Hogan[edit]

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

Being an executive director of a political party just on a state level does not show notability. Google search does not show any notability. A local politician that does not have national/international press coverage. In my opinion, this failed WP:NPOL. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Montana. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2022 (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.

Henry Sherman[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) InvadingInvader (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relies too largely on a single source. Could not find any significant coverage nor able to find proof that he satisfies the GNG. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Law. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline speedy. Highest judicial officer of a U.S. territory, appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate, is an automatic WP:NPOL keep. BD2412 T 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van de León[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No reliable source hits on Google and GNews. Google News Archives and GBooks show that he is indeed a prolific actor as there are several listings of his filmography with Sampaguita. However, the lists do not provide any insights on any of de Leon's awards or notable works within Philippine cinema that could justify notability. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there a corresponding article in the subject's mother language? If it is accepted that he is a prolific actor, it could be argued that the second limb of WP:NACTOR is made out. And if he has indeed won awards, then I think further research is warranted. I don't feel I'm in a position to cast a vote at this time, but would suggest a re-listing to see if anything further can be found. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the WP:RS on anything related to the Philippines during the 20th century and beyond on the internet is in English. If you can't find RS in English, you won't find anything else. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Divakaran[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. All/nearly all publications are from predatory journals or self-published (https://horizonbooks.asia/). Fails WP:NPROF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC Contributor008 (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a a lack of notability here, as nominator mentioned. ZanciD (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find anything that proves notability. Speedy delete --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above Mardetanha (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Padé (DJ)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have notified the page creator of COI. Their entire edit history seems to relate to this individual. No comment with regard to AfD. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 11 October 2022 (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 speedy keep. The nominator has suggested a withdrawal, as notability is clearer than it previously appeared. There are no users at this point arguing in favour of deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 22:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Egg (Weir short story)[edit]

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

There's been a WP:GNG tag on this article since Jan 2022 but no discussion on it, so I think it's valid to bring this to AfD; feel free to redirect me somewhere else if this isn't the right venue.

The most significant coverage I could find was in The Stanford Daily ([6]), which is cited by the article. There are passing mentions to it in articles about other works of Weir's, such as this LA Times article about The Martian ([7]), or this Variety article ([8]), but none suggest to me the story itself is significant beyond being another work by the author.

I'm not clear if WP:BK is meant to apply to self-published short stories. If it does, The Egg might be considered significant per the third criteria, "the book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement," specifically Everybody_(Logic_album). There are many reliable sources confirming the inspiration, including the LA times article from earlier, Pitchfork ([9]), and XXL ([10]). I'm unclear what exactly qualifies as a "significant contribution," (it seems likely the criteria is intended to cover adaptations) but according to these sources the album includes direct quotes from the short story.

I'm personally neutral on whether or not the article should be deleted; it seems to be right on the edge of notability. I don't feel like it's obviously notable enough to remove the GNG tag without discussion though, so I'm bringing it here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This piece, which appears to be a journal article, covers the story as a problem in translation. Combined with the material discussed above and already present in the article, I see no reason to either delete this or merge it into Weir's own article--although the latter is clearly more appropriate than deletion, since V is readily met. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The person claiming to be neutral is not neutral. They have personal motives that are directing their actions. The Egg is the reason Andy Weir first gained notoriety. Furthermore, The Egg is often used in classrooms and has served an educational purpose. Considering how widely known the piece is, the motives of the person requesting the article be deleted are blatant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.177.202 (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are my personal motives here? I'm bringing forward an AfD on an article another editor flagged for notability questions. I also explicitly stated I'm not certain it should be deleted; this is a space for discussing that. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep. Lots of passing mentions in reputable sources, Logic references, and some random HITC article ([11]) make this seem to follow criterion 1 pretty well, and criterion 3 quite well. Also, just noticed criterion 4, which is almost certainly satisfied ([12], [13]) Oeoi (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the additional sources others have noted, I think this definitely isn't as much of an edge-case as it initially appeared. Willing to withdraw/move for a speedy close of this AfD. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:51, 11 October 2022 (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.