Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      July 13 (Sat)      July 12 (Fri)      July 11 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

1794 in Ukraine

1794 in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

GNG Martin^talk 21:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)(strike withdrawn nomination statement)[reply]

• Keep Look at Template:Years in Ukraine, or any for any other nation. I link to anything notable enough to have its own article, so its a valid navigational list. There are also two references there, one for the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and the other from Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Dream Focus 22:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 22:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has encyclopedic value and sources exist that meet GNG. Question to nominator, Martinc021 did you do a BEFORE prior to nominated this? Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  I withdraw my nomination --Martin^talk 02:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While "GNG" is not a valid nomination by any stretch, Ukraine was not a country at the time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 in Kosovo. Also, a category would do a fine job of containing what little information there is here. Geschichte (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_June_27#1794_in_Ukraine_(closed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to History of Ukraine#18th century per Geschichte‘s vote and per WP:NOPAGE. The three cities/ports established during this year can be included as a single-sentence mention at the proposed target. Absent a redirect and/or selective merge, my second preference would be to keep the article as is. Frank Anchor 10:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1794 in Russia, in analogy to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 in Kosovo. Procyon117 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janneke Parrish

Janneke Parrish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO; at best WP:BIO1E. Also unambiguous WP:COI as page created and curated by the subject. Page was previously subject of PROD and deleted. Note my recent PROD tag was (appropriately) declined by Primefac: "cannot be nominated under PROD because of the previous AFD, and cannot be nominated under WP:G4 because it is significantly different than the original". Cabrils (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Covered in the Guardian [1] and the NY Times [2]. With the rest of the coverage for this activist, it should be fine for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: and [3] and some textbooks talking about her in the last few years, showing sustained coverage [4] and [5]. Her situation at work is discussed here [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to AppleToo. The serious WP:COI with the creator is an issue, but not the primary one. Per nom, Parrish is notable for one event: being fired from Apple as it relates to #AppleToo. 99.99999% of sources are specifically about AppleToo: nearly all about her firing. The sources Oaktree b shares are the same topic, sustained or otherwise. The very first article about #AppleToo was in Vice, some weeks later The Guardian covered it, and of the hundreds of results during the first month, there is nothing about Parrish. Her first mention is in The New York Times about the recording that was leaked and #AppleToo. For the following month Business Insider & Vox. That's 3 sources for #AppleToo as a standalone event—and BI is derivative of NYT.

Only 5 sources out of all of the sources about her are not related to her being fired. Only 2 of those are not related to #AppleToo. There's no case for WP:BLP2E here. Say ocean again (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I weigh events individually to determine notability. The Information and Stat News do not meet WP:EVENTCRIT. (I can only read the first few paragraphs from The Information, but the title also says it's about her firing, so it is, by extension, related to the same event.) The time span between them is only a month and there's no lasting impact or sustained coverage of the event. ... viral phenomena – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. It's a bit misleading to say there are multiple sources from before #AppleToo, when there is only one: The Austin American-Statesman. She was not elected and it was local election so it fails WP:NPOL (not widely or significantly covered, either). The notable event is #AppleToo. WP:BIO1E says: In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Without Parrish's firing, there are only two intellectually independent sources. Vox and NYT. Coverage about her role in #AppleToo begins on the day she was fired from The Verge (Oct. 15, 2021: 3 months after #AppleToo began). Her role is described in a variety of sources as being one of the people who shared and posted the stories beginning in September: Parrish and Cher Scarlett, an Apple software engineer, then began sharing these stories on Medium. In Business Journals she describes analyzing the data. I went in and read every single employee story so that we could put together statistics on what they were about. Wired describes her as a founder of Apple Together, but there's nothing beyond this mention. WP:WEIGHT is a significant factor here for all of this, especially it is a WP:AUTOBIO. The firing is what is persistent here in the context of #AppleToo, so the question remains if her firing is a standalone event from #AppleToo, which would be the single qualifier for an article about her.

Separate comment: I don't think the Kara Alaimo source can be used. The author writes Parrish started #AppleToo. That seems false based on the sources (especially after having read them chronologically). While some later sources describe Parrish as a co-founder, none of the early ones do. They describe her as a leader for her role in sharing the stories on Medium. The Vice source says a pseudonymous Apple service provider "Fudge" co-founded the group and the vast majority say the founders were Scarlett and a group of anonymous 15 employees in Fudge's Discord server. This is part of the reason why I consider narrative to be a primary source, even if it's in a book. I am more wary of it with Parrish given that this is the second autobiography from her. Say ocean again (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Agree with Oaktree b above. Looking closer, multiple sources providing in-depth WP:SIGCOV into her specifically (1, 2). Additional sources from before #AppleToo, such as 3. In regards to WP:BLP1E, I would say she does not meet condition #3: the event in question (#AppleToo) is very significant and Parrish's role in it was both substantial and well documented. CaptainAngus (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage on her activism in the area. Hence, the firing is just one aspect of her coverage and is not a single event. The sources noted by CaptainAngus and Oaktree b are examples of significant coverage. In addition, and unrelated to her work at Apple, Parrish has received significant coverage about her experiences with health professionals when she had a miscarriage and how changes in US regulations about abortion will impact women seeking medical care in the United States, see stories here: [[7]][8]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Bu Sa'ad

Al Bu Sa'ad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article fails WP:GNG and is entirely made up of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the sources mention "Al Bu Sa'ad". Additionally, there is a "Culture and cuisine" section which seems to have no relation to the topic of the article. Skitash (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture section refers to the culture and cuisine of the Al Bu Sa’ad tribe. Additionally, the sources refer to the Isaaq tribe which is a parent tribe of the Al Bu Sa’ad, or mention the Somali variation spelling of Al Bu Sa’ad as Sacad (bin) Musa. Please help out the article by adding citations rather than nominate the whole article for deletion.

Thanks,

Ismail. Ismail7Hussein (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The person is not notable; highly promo article; sources are about companies nor the person; 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Keep. The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person. Probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. WP:MILL business person. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. No SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please find some examples of WP:SIGCOV:

  1. https://forbes.ua/profile/oleksandr-komarov-369 (1 place among top 25 best СЕО)
  2. https://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2018/12/6/643323/
  3. https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/markets/v-kijivstar-priznachili-novoho-kerivnika-z-beeline-2483354.html

  See also 17,000+ results of Google Search in Ukrainian

  Komarov is really No 1 business person in Ukraine --Perohanych (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I stand by my delete here. References are trivial mentions. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Everything else is routine press releases. C F A 💬 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) please adhere to this guideline and learn how to spot paid or superficial news from deep media coverage 182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! --Perohanych (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lots of trivial mentions and interviews among the available sources, but I'd count Interfax Ukraine, EPravda, Forbes Kazakhstan and DELO.ua as sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG. If the consensus goes toward deletion, I'd recommend a redirect to Kyivstar instead of outright deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Potocki

Przemysław Potocki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for WP:BLPS. In my opinion, its not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Potocki family. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to his father Antoni Potocki (1780–1850) to which Przemysław's mother also redirects. Oppose redirecting to Potocki family, which I assume is for notable entries (although I see one non-linked entry). Also, neither his father nor son who have standalone pages, have entries in the Potocki family. Jay 💬 00:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (although not on BLP grounds for a subject who purportedly died in 1847). Not finding any sources to pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Procedural close with NPASR on grounds of nominator being a banned sockpuppet with a pattern of disruptive AfD nominations. (I stand by my earlier !vote but would rather see it nominated by an editor in good standing.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that this article does not contain footnotes and it says " He was married to Princess Teresa Sapieha since 1830. They had five children together: Roza Marianna Potocka, Idalia Potocka, Pelagia Potocka, Stanisław Antoni Potocki and Antoni Potocki. " No further description and some hopeless information AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article fails to suggest the subject was notable; being a noble from a notable family is not enough. No sources, no pl wiki interwiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nox (platform)

Nox (platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Speedy was just declined (courtesy @Jeraxmoira and Let'srun:, so we're here. It's a copy paste from the source which was present in the first version so there's nothing to revert to and no indication the text was released under an applicable license. I'm unable to find sufficient sourcing on which to build even a stub following rev del. Star Mississippi 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There seems to be a lot of reliable sources on this subject when searched for "Nox" platform SDN on google books, scholar and I believe the platform was/is used widely. If someone can ping a subject matter expert, it would be useful to evaluate the sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet television providers

List of Internet television providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very vague definition of 'internet TV provider'. Questionable accuracy, see Germany for example where linear channels are listed and which are not 'Internet TV providers'. Lack of references, and seems to be an easy target for vandalisers who want to promote their own services. Amchipo (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article feels like a victim of the times. It was created 15 years ago, when streaming services were nascent and Netflix's only existed in the United States. Now, there are lots of flavors of internet TV, from on-demand streaming services like Netflix etc. to virtual MVPDs that mirror the cable bundle and free ad-supported streaming television that is typically a series of linear channels. The page size graph mirrors this explosion: from 2015 to 2017, it grew from 8 kB to 35 kB, and it went from 47 to 64 kB in the last two years. We have hit a point where a list presents more maintenance load than it is worth. WP:CLN notes, Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. This, I believe, has happened to the topic as a result of secular growth. Category:Internet television streaming services was created in 2018 and has some 130 entries. Someone should review the entries in the list and look to see that relevant ones are in that category. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Schalke 04 Cup

2014 Schalke 04 Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As a friendly tournament, the matches were of no consequence. Thus, 10 years later, we can clearly see that the tournament was not noteworthy, wasn't important in the world of football and got a corresponding lack of coverage (apart from reports of the matches). The level of detailed coverage on display (goalscorers, match kick-off times, table) is therefore not needed, with the entry failing WP:NOTINHERITED (notability not being inherited from the participating teams), WP:MILL, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTSTATS among others. Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – It is self-evident that a friendly tournament will not change the course of football history, but the record of a competition that brought together four top-tier clubs in Europe does not seem impertinent to me, and the records of the matches and other relevant information are all available for verification. As there were no more editions to stabilize the competition, as occurred with the Audi Cup, I understand the nomination, but I do not see sufficient reason to eliminate the article. Svartner (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability, and thus doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and part merge to 2014–15 FC Schalke 04 season, there is a bizarre notion that pre-seasons have no bering on club seasons, well they can, from injuries to key players, a club debut for another player. I don't see a need for this AfD at this level. There is a scattering effect of information and then there is no information. How in-depth to you want an article to be. It could easily be kept with good coverage. But I don't see the point here. Clearly no thought to a redirect or adding certain information to the other club season articles. Govvy (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanth Venkataramanujam

Prashanth Venkataramanujam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable BLP. Sources relate either to Patriot Act or Hasan Minhaj. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, you mean? And he might mean WP:CREATIVE as creator/writer of this series... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batboat

Batboat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant Redirect to Batman#Technology as suggested below. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC); edited 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revising stance. I still don't believe its a notable subject, but it is a plausible search term, and can easily be mentioned at Batman#Technology. I don't see any "size" issues because much of the contents of this article should not be mentioned there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman#Technology, where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile. There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang, Batsuit, Batmobile, Bat-Signal, and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides the book, I found an article here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion. Creating Technology of Batman as a WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Batman#Technology as an alternative to deletion. If Technology of Batman is ever created with a mention of Batboat, it can be then redirected there. --Mika1h (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Batman#Technology for now, then merge the contents of the article to Technology of Batman when it is created. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to Batman#Technology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman#Technology. This term can be mentioned there, but stand-alone GNG is too weak for an article. WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Batman#Technology. The article isn't about a coherent topic, and doesn't have enough evidence of notability. There is a logical redirect target that covers Batman's gadgets in a more encyclopedic way. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who items

List of Doctor Who items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget items in the list and Delete list.

-Celery to Fifth Doctor

-Chameleon Circuit to TARDIS

-Hand of Omega to Remembrance of the Daleks

-A Journal of Impossible Things to Human Nature (Doctor Who)

-Key to Time to Doctor Who season 16

-Matrix to Gallifrey

-Delete severed hand due to lack of discernible name that can differentiate it from the concept of a severed hand

-Delete Squareness Gun due to being non-notable and lacking a redirect target (Maybe Jack Harkness?)

-Sonic Screwdriver has an article already

-Superphone lacks a redirect and not really an important concept, delete

-TARDIS has an article

-Time Scoop to The Five Doctors

Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.

Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:BOLDLY edited the redirects based on these suggestions. Other editors can edit them further if they so choose. I support deletion, as the nominator. Jontesta (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Proposal of Pokelego999 looks good. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zxcvbnm. The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the redirects can be pointed to new targets per Pokelego999. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a merge target of multiple NN other articles. The topic of the list is 'Doctor Who' not 'Doctor Who Items' so the topic is clearly notable, even though many of the individual elements are clearly not, which per WP:CSC is a textbook application: These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even so, the subjects must be described as a group in order to determine the notability of this deviation, as well as the fact that the list must not fall afoul of INDISCRIMINATE, among many other reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Zxcvbnm - The couple of notable entries in this list already have their own individual articles, and the remainder are non-notable topics that are either poorly sourced or have no sources at all outside of Dr. Who itself. The overall topic of Dr. Who being notable does not mean that lists of random, vaguely related topics can't also fall under being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have no objection to individual redirects being created, as suggested by Pokelego999. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and redirect incoming per Pokelego999. This fails WP:LISTN as the topic of the article, despite assertions above, is actually "Doctor Who Items" as notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. We are not a random collection of fictional minutia. This is particulaly true for lists of fictional items (e.g. Torchwood items, Once Upon a Time items, Metroid items, W.I.T.C.H. items, Harry Potter spells, Space: 1999 weapons, etc., etc.). The question that should be asked is has the group "Items in Doctor Who" been treated as a group in high quality RSs, to which I think the answer is no.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Completely violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with no indication for importance. Let'srun (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I have no idea what this proposal is asking a closer to do ("retarget"?). Is it an argument to Keep this article? I'm not concerned with items on this list, I need to know what should happen to this specific article, in its totality. It's Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or Draftify, those are your options from a closer's point of view.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz In this case, those arguing delete/retarget is asking for the closer to delete the article, I believe, while the redirects are sorted out individually on the editor side of things, though to any editors who voted Delete and disagree, feel free to speak your minds. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct - I am arguing to Delete this list outright. But, if someone wanted to, separate from the closing of this AFD, create a Redirect from Chameleon Circuit to Tardis, etc., then I would have no problem with that. Rorshacma (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Once the article is deleted/redirects, any other redirects can be edited / retargeted / recreated as needed. Jontesta (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kostya Tszyu vs. Sharmba Mitchell II

Kostya Tszyu vs. Sharmba Mitchell II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is written like a narrative around the leadup to and during the fight. Additionally, all these extra details aren't supported by the single source provided, which I believe is WP:NOR. When looking for reliable resources about this fight and match card, I could only find a couple of news articles from ABC News (Australia) that explained the fight was happening and not much else. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 22:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - World title fights are usually inherently notable events. This article was written at an era in which reliably-sourced material was not deemed as important to the article as it is today. It will be hard to find reliable links due to the fact the bout took place 20 years ago, but I am working on that as I speak. Jeanette La Trevi Martin (digame) 03:40, 12 July, 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans pounce

Republicans pounce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is essentially about a handful of disconnected opinion pieces, with only one or two non-opinion pieces briefly criticizing them. There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic, and most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly while focusing on a more specific issue. It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets; the opinion pieces are lopsided representations of the Washington Examiner and the National Review. It's not appropriate to make a Wikipedia article for every opinion-piece talking point, especially ones that have failed to attract significant secondary or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article's creator.

There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic See these articles which engage in an analysis of the phenomenon itself:

• When 'conservatives pounce': The right finds its cautionary tale of subtle media bias
• Tucker Carlson and the oversold ‘Republicans pounce’ complaint
• When Politicians ‘Pounce’

most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly Clearly not true. There are multiple opinion articles which do not merely use the term, but discuss the overall phenomenon as their primary focus:

• Republicans pounce!
• ‘Conservatives Pounce,’ Again
• When Republicans ‘Pounce’
• ‘Republicans Pounce’ Coverage Is Toxic to Government Accountability

It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets The "Analysis" section is a fair balance of the opinion sources I found when researching the topic, per WP:DUE. It is not surprising that more right-leaning commentators would discuss this phenomenon than left-leaning ones, nor that their views would appear in prominent right-leaning publications such as National Review and Washington Examiner. The Kevin Drum piece in Mother Jones is the only one I could find from a left-leaning perspective. And in any event, this "overrepresentation" is a content dispute, not a notability one.

Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, this Commentary article discussing the phenomenon is from 2015, which is indicative of sustained attention. Astaire (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The WSJ piece (which you listed as non-opinion) is actually labeled as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this article reads more like a defense of the term. It needs more content about its usage, its history, generally the things that would make it notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •Comment I believe this article needs more reliable sources to prove notability if it wants to avoid deletion. Most of the sources were previously opinion pieces from random news websites, and an opinion cannot be considered factual sources. In fact, at one point, there was only a single source that was not an opinion. If actual valid sources could be found, I would not mind the article staying, but not in it’s current state where sources are dubious at best and the term hasn’t really been proven to be an actual notable thing outside of a couple rare “here and there” uses. For now I must support Aquillion’s AFD request, but it appears people are actively trying to edit the article to make it better and should be given more time first. Tritario (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the editor who added a "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" template. As I said on the article's talk page: "Since the creation of the article by Astaire some of the cites have been deleted, but the sources actually exist and I believe their existence contributes to notability. Of course cited articles are opinion pieces since it's an article about opinions so I don't see what policy or guideline that objection is based on." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would this make a better entry to Wikitionary? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, I don't use Wiktionary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how it can misrepresent publications overall when the authors are all individually named. Potential alternate notable opinions include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. On the surface it is a bit long for an article based on 3 sources, but reading through it doesn't stretch them too far. Editors should continue to be conscious that this is a relatively thin article and should allow any new sources that appear to substantially impact our treatment of its subject. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea is that the Wikieditor shoudn't be the one to string it all together. There should be at least one article, preferably more, that mentions these people collectively and says "Yes, that's the same thing." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:If a major paper like The Journal uses this term as a headline, there is little doubt that this is notable and that a Wikipedia page has merit. Quote Veteran (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TRENDS Research & Advisory

TRENDS Research & Advisory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. Un assiolo (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Un assiolo (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Un assiolo, do you have any policy-based evidence to support your claim? Just saying "not notable" is not very helpful. C F A 💬 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? This is a borderline A7. The sources are all press releases, a LinkedIn (which I have now removed), the company website, and a few company profiles (on websites that collect them indiscriminately). Adding something along the lines of the three sentences suggested at WP:JN would not, in my opinion, add anything of substance to the nomination. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability whatsoever. Also is one of them seriously a job listing??? Procyon117 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inno Setup

Inno Setup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The topic does not have a detailed independent secondary source and is also not compliant with WP:NSOFT. The sources used in the article are either blogs or simply software instructions. Nolan Cohen (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Nolan Cohen (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a popular piece of software as clearly mentioned in multiple different books ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]} and peer-reviewed journal and conference articles. ^{[6] [7] [8]} It is also considered as a language/tool by GitHub Linguist. ^[9] Uvarun2009 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sources presented above are either instructional guides for downloading software or lack in-depth, detailed coverage. Also, some sources have a promotional tone, such as the one on Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are also sources that remain unverified. Nolan Cohen (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The WP:PARTISAN clearly mentions that: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Of course, I am not urging to use the exact same tone or point of view from the sources. I have verified all the sources that I provided. I want to highlight that WP:SOURCETYPES mentions that, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The peer-reviewed scholarly articles I provided in the sources, clearly mentions Inno Setup as a "powerful" and "popular" piece of software. Uvarun2009 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance

Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable local residents association. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste Henry

Namaste Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. Un assiolo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and India. Un assiolo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not meeting corporate notability, I can only find a database listing [9], their Linkedin and an Imdb profile for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7, G11, G5, take your pick. It's spam for an unremarkable company, by this week's sockpuppet of Btw Santhosh, and mainly sourced as usual with Santhosh's dire news-skinned blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think "India's largest advertising company" disqualifies it from A7 (though it might not actually be true), and there is some non-advert content, disqualifying it from G11. If it really is a sockpuppet, then of course G5 applies. I was not aware of any alleged sockpuppetry which is why I nominated it at AfD instead of requesting speedy deletion. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 would apply in my opinion, because the claim of "India's largest advertising company" is simply not credible. But I didn't mean to criticise you for bringing it to AFD: that was a perfectly valid action based on your assumptions. Wikishovel (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Only promotional content is there.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Obviously promotional content per G11. HarukaAmaranth 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.K Varghese

M.K Varghese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP of a local mayor who does not pass NPOL and is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local officials are not automatically notable, and I don't see the kind of news coverage needed to satisfy GNG either. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning

Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I accepted this article from draft with the intention that it meets WP:GNG. This is also done with the guidelines for accepting drafts via AFC process. However, another editor questioned my acceptance with the opposing question of this article not meeting GNG, as well as a prior work of socks. I told him to take it to AFD for a formal discussion yet he chose to ignore that and sincerely wanted to investigate more. The problem is that there haven't been any problem I can see about this article and being created via AFC is a handful way of seeking a second review otherwise opinion. I have brought it here for a formal discussion, and still maintain keeping the article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Pakistan. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• SafariScribe, Sorry, but I want to remind you of two points: 1) The article wasn't created via AFC and wasn't even submitted for review. 2) I didn't sincerely wanted to investigate more. As I mentioned on your tp, this AFD was unnecessary and I have little hope it will result in deletion. As I've mentioned on your tp, the AFD process can now feel like a lottery. Anyway, you could have sent it back to the draft namespace, but you decided to take it to AFD, which was your choice. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see no issue. It meets WP:NFO criteria #1 and WP:NFILM/GNG in general (see: [10][11][12][13] etc.). This is perfectly fine in mainspace from what I can see. The purpose of AfC is "[...] to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't." I imagine this article will survive deletion because of the amount of coverage it has received. (Semi-)unrelated, I would not recommend moving an article accepted by AfC back to draftspace: Although it doesn't technically violate WP:DRAFTOBJECT (because in this case the reviewer would have been the one to move it back), it could very easily confuse the newer editor who created it. C F A 💬 22:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't plan to vote for deletion because I don't want others to think I'm on a deletion spree, but I do want to point out that the article was created in violation of the WMF Terms of Use's prohibition of UPE. The fact that it was created by a WP:SLEEPER account as well SPA Wahab98 (talk · contribs) who has been trying to create an article on this topic since joining WP back in 2022, (see this, this, this) leads me to believe involvement of WP:UPE. The fact that different WP:UPE IPs (Special:Contributions/217.165.8.38 and Special:Contributions/223.123.5.5) started editing and defending the article as soon as it was moved to the main namespace and the fact that articles on the same topic have been repeatedly created under different titles by different accounts associated with different UPE sock farms such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress (Nauman335), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taiyabi/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scudo Lives Once/Archive at Draft:UmroAyyar A New Beginning, Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning, Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning, Draft:Umro Ayyar- A New Begining etc. I really have no issue with an article on this topic being created, but it should be done by an established editor with a credible editing history, not by a WP:SLEEPER/SPA Wahab98. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not only on this wiki, but the same WP:UPE sock farm recently resorted to creating an article on this topic on the Simple EN WP, out of desperation. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's basically a start-class article at this point, but enough reviews noted that appear to be from good sources to meet notability. I've removed a bit of the gratuitous name-dropping and fluff, at this point, I doubt there's much junk from the UPE editor. Ravensfire (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Favour Eucharia Ngozi Ugwuanyi

Favour Eucharia Ngozi Ugwuanyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP of an educational administrator whom I don’t believe is notable. Article sourced to PR announcements and affiliated sources. Mccapra (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Education, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish notability here, not presumptively either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Benjamin

Jonny Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person now, and I want the article to be deleted please Jonnybenjamin (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both Jonnybenjamin and Jlf2025 have held themselves out as the article's subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i created a new account as per the advice of Geoffrey Lane-i was following the instructions step by step from his reply to Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team Re: [Ticket#2024071110029918] Request to delete page about me Jonnybenjamin (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have corrected the link; it previously linked to a non-existent article. Please confirm this is the correct link. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E. I have removed some of the more unnecessary personal details. The Stranger on the Bridge might be a redirect target, or another candidate for deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Stranger on the Bridge: per WP:1E. C F A 💬 20:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  also support protection per below. C F A 💬 03:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and protect so it can’t be undone. We don’t need this amount of sensitive personal information about a living person. Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatim Zaghloul

Hatim Zaghloul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and the article is written in a promotional and advertising tone, and lacks neutrality. فيصل (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Internet. فيصل (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks the independent sourcing required to demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aangan Ke Laxmi

Aangan Ke Laxmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. In fact there not even enough sourcing ( or content) to figure out what this is about. Appears to be a mashup of two different films with similar names. Aangan Ke Laxmi and Aangan Ki Laxmi Info box says 1986 film but the only two sources that actually discuss it are short "future film" type pieces from a couple years ago. Found nothing in a search for Aangan Ke Laxmi North8000 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It appears there have been a few mixups here. It looks like Aangan Ke Laxmi (the article title) is a 1986 film (entirely non-notable); see this mention in a book bibliography. Sources 3 and 4 in the article are referring to a film called Aangan Ki Laxmi (sometimes Aangan Ki Lakshimi), which has more coverage and was released last year. Aangan Ki Laxmi probably meets NFILM/GNG (see [14][15][16] and on Google). It would be helpful here if the creator (NIA3000) clarifies what exactly this article is about or if the two films are related. If it is about the 1986 film, then I vote delete. Otherwise, I am not familiar enough with the topic to decide what to do here. C F A 💬 19:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if the second film is notable, would Draftifying this help? Get it sorted out and publish back in mainspace with proper sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. But there's a lot to sort out, starting with the title. And there's not much to save. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cityscape Global

Cityscape Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. Ciudatul (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ciudatul (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no coverage of any kind in sources other than obscure and likely unreliable tech blogs. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: lots of in-depth coverage; easily meets WP:NCORP. See Google news (ex: [17][18][19][20][21][22] etc.). It might need a bit of cleanup but deletion is certainly not warranted. I don't think the nominator did a WP:BEFORE. C F A 💬 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Source 8 is too buggy to open without registering, 9 appears to be a trade journal (not a RS), 10 is a brief PR item, as is 11. 12 is fine I suppose. 13 is a staff report about an award given out, somewhat related. Most of these are not terribly helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, though there is a lot of coverage online of this event. The articles above were just a few I found by skimming the first page of Google news. For example, here is another article from Arab News, here is one from Gulf News, here is one in the Entrepreneur magazine, here is one in the Gulf Business magazine, here is one from Gulf Today, and the list goes on and on. The subject is definitely notable (it is covered in-depth by many, many independent reliable sources), you just might have to wade through some routine press releases to get there. C F A 💬 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Most coverage of this conference/trade show is in PR items, talking about the show. I don't see much beyond lists of awards or PRish news items. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles involving Sweden

List of battles involving Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very cluttered, and serves no real purpose, there is a category for battles involving Sweden for a reason. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This AfD nominated the talk page, not the article. This has a number of consequences, links not working and so on. Given the amount of scripts and automation around AfDs, is it easier to just close this and open a new one? Ping Gvssy. /Julle (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes of course, it was my mistake, I thought I was nominating the article. Gvssy (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of battles by geographic location #Sweden - I disagree with the OP's reasoning, as the page is useful and could be expanded to include useful information, similar to pages like List of battles involving Georgia (country). However, there isn't much to gain by having an entirely separate page devoted to it, as there aren't enough battles to do so, so a redirect is preferable. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have corrected this nomination to reflect that the article was intended nominated, not the talk page. Normally I would not do this, preferring to procedurally close this and equally-procedurally formally nominate the article, but before I or anyone else could do that Politicdude legitimately presented their opinion regarding an alternative to deletion so there is no reason to fracture this discussion (and the article does have an AfD tag waiting, anyway). Apologies if any of this is out-of-process in any way. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ventrella

Jeffrey Ventrella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. The sourcing on the article is almost entirely primary, and what secondary sources do exist are either not independent or do not cover the subject in depth. I also couldn't find any sources to establish notability either, unfortunately. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are a lot of almost but not quite bits here. I found this on the academic deletion sorting list but he appears not to be primarily an academic and although he has one workshop publication with triple-digit citations [23] the rest do not give him a strong enough citation record for WP:PROF#C1. He has one book, Virtual Body Language, for which I didn't find any reviews; I would need multiple reviews of multiple books to consider notability through WP:AUTHOR. The article as nominated contains no WP:GNG-passing sources. The best I found in my searches was [24], a local newspaper story from 2015 about a startup he founded with some depth of coverage of Ventrella himself. I did also find one group work in MoMA that he contributed to, not enough by itself for WP:ARTIST. We could consider a redirect, if we had a viable redirect target, but neither There (virtual world) nor Gene Pool (software) currently look viable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The AfD from 2007 actually got it (mostly) right, there was no coverage about the individual despite hundreds of hits... In the almost 20 yrs since, I can only find primary sourcing or a few social media sites. Source 21 in the article is the only RS, the rest aren't anything we'd use to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EOdisha Summit

EOdisha Summit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the general notability guideline. No independent sources to speak of. Also bundling:

EOdisha Summit 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EOdisha Summit 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SaUp2014 (talk · contribs) may need closer attention to determine whether any more of their articles merit deletion. – Teratix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, and Odisha. – Teratix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a notable conference, and the per-year articles are filled with unsourced minutiae. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Articles make no attempt to establish a credible claim of significance, let alone notability. No independent sources of any kind and few sources in general. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not sure about A7 but definitely fails WP:NORG/GNG. Google search only returns their websites and these articles. C F A 💬 21:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Development

Bosphorus Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:ORGTRIV (routine coverage of market entries, financing, awards, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, self-published materials), or otherwise unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing validating notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jite Agbro

Jite Agbro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Main reason is that the subject fails all 4 criteria of WP:ARTIST and the article reads like a Vanity page with the addition of the website and specific details such as "Agbro focuses on non-verbal communication and the idea that everyone presents themselves within a system" which is taken from non-independent/bias non-reliable references (museum which exposed the work of the subject). The subject fails WP:NBIO with lacking significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Nigeria, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The “Selected exhibitions” section clearly helps understand how this pass NCREATIVE 4b. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is TOOSOON for this artist to have an encyclopedia article because they do not yet have the professional track record of reviews, articles about their work, chapters in art history books, museum or national gallery collections, etc. that is required. The work is beautiful however all of the exhibitions are at non-notable venues, except the Bainbridge Island Museum, which is a small regional museum. Fails both GNG and NARTIST, and does not meet NCREATIVE 4b criteria at this time; perhaps in a few more years after more critical attention is received. A "significant exhibition" would be at a venue like the Venice Bienniale, Whitney Biennial, Documenta, the Carnegie International. In the previous deletion discussion, WomenArtistUpdates provided an excellent source assessment summary table why this does not meet GNG. It does not seem like much changed in the article since then other than formatting. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. Nice stuff but WP:TOOSOON. See source assessment table created July 1 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jite Agbro. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Tourism Awards

Seoul Tourism Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable award which effectively serves the purpose of rewarding people who promote tourism in Seoul. The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans. The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Travel and tourism, and South Korea. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.

[26][27][28][29]

I can look up more upon request.

Also I'd argue the lack of activity and links is much more secondary to coverage. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Sir

Khan Sir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This stub about an Internet personality whose channel is education based was recently accepted at AFC. I believe it to be a borderline acceptance, which is fine of itself. AFC reviewers role is to accept drafts which they believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. As a fellow AFC reviewer I believe that the subject is not verified to pass WP:BIO, and that the draft was below the acceptance threshold. On that basis I would not have accepted it. The referencing is independent, yes, but the content of the references is gossip column-like trivia, which simulates significant coverage, but which is not. I see the only way of resolving this is for the community to discuss it, hence AfD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, Internet, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am not going to vote here since my stance is clear, as I accepted the draft. At the time I saw the draft, it was not passing GNG, but I know the personality well and thought he might already have a Wikipedia article. When I found out he did not, I started to find significant coverages and added many that are currently cited. I respect Timtrent’s judgment, and we already discussed it on my talk page. We would like to get the community's views on the article. Lastly, I want to add that if the article can’t be kept, we can draftify it, as it has good sourcing, and the subject may gain more coverage to establish notability in the future. Happy editing. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Draftification is a perfectly acceptable outcome to me as nominator. I ought to have said that in the nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH - Subject has a reasonable claim to notability, and I don't see what draftifying would accomplish. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have done some research to find Hindi sources and interestingly found many that may establish notability.
  *BBC Hindi | *News18 Hindi | *NewsNation | *AmarUjala | *News18 Hindi and *Dainik Jagran Hindi
  In my opinion, the BBC Hindi one is a very powerful source with significant coverage. I will leave it to the community. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 08:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think its the time for voting Keep. GrabUp - Talk 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moppi Productions

Moppi Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], only a single mention. One can find mentions elsewhere, like in this Tivi (magazine) [fi] article. According to a licentiate thesis, "Kurki (2002, p.57–62) used Moppi Productions as a case example when discussing developing visual styles", but I wasn't able to access the work. toweli (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Finland. toweli (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age and health concerns of Joe Biden

Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork, inappropriate WP:SPINOFF, hyper-fixating on the news-of-the-hour. There's nothing here that cannot be covered by a short mention at Joe Biden, and a bit more at Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Note that there was once at attempt at a similar article for Mr. Trump, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. Zaathras (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zaathras (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale, as well as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOPAGE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to Keep after finding the numerous subsequent arguments persuasive. This is clearly heading into WP:SNOW territory. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as the article stands it would warrant deletion, but I think the issue is article worthy in the wake of his debate performance. This is the most embattled a (presumptive) nominee has been since the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape incident in 2016, which has its own article not to mention that Biden has been dogged with questions about his cognition since even before he ran in 2020 and up until recently was dismissed as bad faith attacks by his opponents. In the last week, that is no longer the case.
• If the article can be fleshed out, it should be kept. PaulRKil (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is this article going to have any staying power? If anything else develops on the subject, perhaps more can be added. I support Draftify at this point until/if more can be cohesively developed on this subject. BarntToust (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think life (events) will quickly develop this article. Unless Biden resigns, the days and months will roll on and every health incident will be scrutinized. When he resigns, health problems will be the reason for his resignation – an important event and also a detailed analysis. There is no need to rush into deleting the article. Then we will need to restore. Wikipek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and consequently restore Health of Donald Trump, which was merged/redirected pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. Both articles covered much the same kinds of concern. BD2412 T 15:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree with this. Trump and Biden's health and age have both been extremely scrutinized over the years. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The creation was a bit hasty and puts us in news territory, which is not great, but if GnocchiFan keeps adding 1-2kB a day it will be hard to justify deletion(they're the one who created it). The Trump matter needs its own discussion, it's an old one and tit-for-tat is a bad look. Trump doesn't have the media jumping on him for this, and he didn't stand gerbil-eyed with his mouth agape at the recent debate. [30] SmolBrane (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmolBrane: The significance of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump is not with respect to the tit-for-tat issue, but with respect to the specific points of discussion raised there that are applicable to this discussion, specifically the assertion made in that discussion that we should not have any freestanding articles on the health of current public figures, and that Wikipedia should follow the Goldwater Rule prohibiting medical professionals from commenting on the health of public figures who they have not personally examined. A great many participants in that discussion supported imposing such a rule, which would obviously vitiate inclusion of comparable medical opinions about Biden absent personal examination. I opposed the imposition of that rule in the Trump discussion, and would oppose it here equally. We are in an historic moment of having two octogenarian presidential candidates, and the Trump article, at the time of its deletion, had dozens of high-level sources commenting on issues with regard to Trump's health, so it is a fair bellwether for the admissibility of the Biden article. BD2412 T 18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply uncomfortable turning this AfD into a discussion about that other guy's AfD. WP:WAX applies and I'm not convinced the situation with Biden is adequately symmetrical for Health of Donald Trump !votes here. Once this discussion closes we could have a similar one regarding Trump imo. Note that Biden wasn't mentioned once on the Trump AfD. Regards SmolBrane (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmolBrane: The shared underlying questions remain open, however. 1) Should Wikipedia have articles on the "health" of living public figures at all? 2) Should Wikipedia be bound by the Goldwater Rule, which prohibits reporting opinions on the heath of individuals by persons who have not conducted an examination of those individuals? BD2412 T 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The irony being--the Goldwater Rule article on this wiki allocates its largest section to a particular former American president(and no one else), observed by someone on the talk page as essentially a coat rack. The goldwater discussion should occur elsewhere if it's going to be a policy. This is headed for a speedy close. SmolBrane (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With how his health and age might end his time in office, I think you have to keep it. Vinnylospo (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with the insistence that it be improved to the point of being brought in line with the encyclopedic nature and aims of Wikipedia. I was a proponent of the creation of this article, but it really was launched too quickly and improperly. As I said on the talk page for Mr Biden's campaign, it's good if it enables us to analyze his health and its implications quickly and in real time, in a way that wasn't possible in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the highly consequential nature of his health, but it can't be treated as a joking matter. At the very least, better must be done for a leading image than to employ a picture of Mr. Biden standing before his lit eighty-first-birthday cake. 216.255.100.62 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's representative of a strategy from the administration and campaign - treat the age issue with humor. We aren't saying it's funny or not funny, it's just emblematic of part of their strategy and consequently part of the page. Maybe not first image, though. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is part of a research project, not a marketing campaign.

So long as it's here... Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will move this image further down to the part of the article which refers to the White House response (I think the joke birthday is relevant there). Feel free to choose another image for the lead and add some further detail if you see fit. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rubbish at image procurement and insertion. Anyway, wouldn't the thing to do for an article like this normally be to use a picture of him that would normally be used otherwise, his official portrait or a picture of him stumping, or something of the like? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, or Merge, as was done with AFD Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump (ended up a merge). If we do less than that here, it looks like we're playing politics in favor of the other candidate. — Maile (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it really looks like we're are playing politics in favor of other candidate. However, after making the article more neutral (adding opinions about the lack of health obstacles, of which there are many) and perhaps changing the title ("Age and health of Joe Biden"?, "Health of Joe Biden"?), the article can be kept. The topic is very widely discussed, attracts attention and causes consequences at the center of the election campaign, unlike in the case of Donald Trump. Wikipek (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to change to Age and health of Joe Biden when this AfD is over. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is that the course of the conversation concerning the health of Mr. Biden is such that discussion on his age is going to be part of and in tandem with discussion about his health, since the end she has already attained has implications for his current health, and maintaining it is key to furthering his age. Since the two subjects have been introduced as a duality, the thing to do is to build both aspects up, so that each can facilitate the furtherance of the other. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restore Health of Donald Trump - Both have received significant coverage in reliable sources and are likely to do so well before and after the current debate news cycle. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above Keep both. Fodient (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign, List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign and 2024 United States presidential debates#Reception and aftermath. Each of the articles are rather weak to stand on its own merits (with the 1st and 2nd article falling under WP:REDUNDANT), but, given that the health concerns described in this article have come to a head in the current political controversy, these 3 articles could together provide cogent context and information regarding the current state of Biden's campaign as described in WP:MERGEREASON. Meanwhile, the section on the June debate on the 2024 article is large enough, at ~3500 words, to be arguably eligible for WP:SPINOFF, especially when accounting for coverage of previous presidential debates (e.g. 2020 United States presidential debates#October 22 presidential debate (Belmont University) at ~1,500 words). Much of this undue weight is due to the sheer length of the "Reception and aftermath" section (~2000 words), which this article would merge neatly with and provide appropriate context for. Baldemoto (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those subjects don't have a whole lot to do with one another. How can they stand as a solid unit together, and how would it not eventually makes sense to split them as the topics are grow too big to fit into one article going forward? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without the media coverage and analysis that has transpired over the past 2 weeks, this topic would not be notable enough to warrant an article under WP:GNG. The reason why this article would be considered notable is because of the June presidential debate, and the flood of consistent news coverage, discussions, and analysis that transpired after the fact. This is plainly evident in the fact that 12 of the 34 citations in this article were written in the past 2 weeks alone. This article is also relied upon to provide the background for Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. Therefore, it makes sense that these articles should be merged, with this article serving the purpose of providing appropriate context. If the article becomes too unwieldy, it would likely be due to the constant stream of new calls for Biden to step aside, which could remain separate in an article reminiscent of List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Baldemoto (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article will continue to be improved with the increasing amount public interest in his high-profile gaffes both domestically and abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZR1748 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is more than sufficient independent sources and coverage now for this. It is impossible to miss, but the original section should still be retained, at least in large part, on the Public image of Joe Biden page. That should not be entirely removed from that page for this page's creation. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I added an excerpt from this article on the public image of Joe Biden page, which I think is appropriate if this article stays. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- this is a big deal--involving not just Biden but many Democratic leaders, and Republicans too, as well as a lo of reporters and physicians. I think it will permanently change how Americans evaluate older politicians. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a significant matter and has been covered in the media extensively. TheInevitables (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only has concerns regarding Biden's health been around for a good while now through reliable coverage but this matter has only increased now that many Democrat leaders have called for him to drop out of this year's US election following the June debate with his health being the common denominator and rationale. I propose bringing back the Health of Donald Trump article for the same reasons that I have already described. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think the article about Donald Trump's health should have been deleted either. In this case the coverage is even more universal, and until the election will probably get too extensive to just merge it into the main article without bloating that one. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a distinct and separate topic, and should not be deleted or merged with the article on his calls to drop out. Both should be kept as articles, as the latter is a recent phenomenon, while his age and health has been an issue/discussion for multiple years. (Ageofultron 17:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - seems to mirror the same discussion happening on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calls_for_Joe_Biden_to_suspend_his_2024_United_States_presidential_campaign

Whoever closes that should close this Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As just an occasional contributor to English-language Wikipedia (active mainly in German-language WP and on Commons), I will formally abstain here (as I'm not familiar enough with en-WP's practices), but my impression is that this article as well as Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign are rather short (when compared to the Joe Biden main article), not many language versions of Wikipedia have decided to split these topics into separate articles (in this case, only French and Finnish Wikipedia, and in the case of the other article, only Icelandic), and it would make more sense IMHO to incorporate them into the main article and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's the correct place for this information as well. I think I remembered hearing that Ronald Reagan had age and health concerns at the end of his presidency, but I can't see that article being kept if it were created now. SportingFlyer T·C 09:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This topic was already a subject of discussion in the media before the June 2024 debate, but this topic & the closely related topic Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have been sucking all the air out of the room ever since then. At least in America's news media, concerns over Biden's age (and by extension his political future) even managed to palpably overshadow the news about the stunning election results in the UK and France. It's hard to argue this is a non notable subject. I'm surprised this is even at AfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is just an essay. There's no reason why this shouldn't be included somewhere on the site, and some of it can be merged, but I think we're confusing news and political commentary with encyclopedic content, and I think this fails the 10 year test. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. The topic of his declining health and overall viability doesn't need multiple articles. Swinub (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Public image of Joe Biden. Absolutely no need for a separate article here. Can also be merged to the Calls For page. Again, we do NOT need this many separate pages covering closely related topics. Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator’s and BD2412’s rationales, and Reywas92’s recommendation. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rohatgi

Roger Rohatgi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is not a single direct and in-depth independent secondary article about him. Seems very non-notable business executive, clergy, motivational speaker. WorthWobble (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CDO of bp, #22 in the Fortune 500, is non-notable figure? 98.118.86.149 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without sourcing, yes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Little to no coverage of this person, this is about all there is [31], Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to bb article. Seems like he initially began his career as a film director and received a notable award, which satisfies WP:ANYBIO criteria. And later, he shifted his career focus and went on to win also the Oracle CX Innovation Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.147.18 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Computer Science and Control

Institute for Computer Science and Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing in this article suggests it passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Most references seem to be to the entity itself. My BEFORE doesn't help much, although sources might exist in Hungarian. The article has a big list of external links, in Hungarian, for anyone who cares to review them (they don't have English titles or publisher information or such). Hungarian wiki article seems to have more content but even fewer references than we do :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Hungary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems

MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The whole article currently relies on primary sources. Also, I am not convinced that a research laboratory of a university and/or a research institute needs a separate article, since there are no major achievements for this. All relevant information can be easily migrated to MTA SZTAKI; therefore, the article can be either completely deleted or, more suitably, merged with MTA SZTAKI. Chiserc (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Institute for Computer Science and Control, which also has dubious notability as written. This is just a spammy catalogue entry with no indications of WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Lyra Dutt

Niharika Lyra Dutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability issue Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Television, Theatre, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I do not really see any notability issues here. The subject person has officially credited lead roles in TV series like Paatal Lok[32], Choona[33], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae[34], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher[35] and Sutliyan[36], which clearly fulfills the NACTOR#1. Besides, The Hindustan Times interview, as well as sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Yahoo! News that are currently cited in the article have also clearly demonstrated that the subject person has fulfilled GNG. It does not even require a BEFORE, as the information presented in the article is already sufficient to show that the subject person has fulfilled two notability guidelines. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. — 48JCL 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NACTOR has clearly been fulfilled but not addressed. And yes, a single interview source itself does not establish notability. But if there are multiple interviews covering a breadth of different topics, this can count towards notability per WP:IV. I am not sure about Times of India, but even if it is excluded, there are still multiple interviews from The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, or Mid-Day[37], which have fulfilled this requirement imo. Still an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment— I agree wholeheartedly with Prince of Erebor. These are absolutely reliable sources. She is a main cast member in the television show mentioned in the article.

  9t5 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal Lok or Choona, or in the streaming/web projects, so not an obviously notable career on the face of it. I am not sure whether any of the articles cited are really WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources I provided show that she is credited as main cast, and they are from The Indian Express, The Hindu, and Variety. I do not believe these three sources have any concerns regarding their reliability. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.

9t5 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I've done a source assessment. — 48JCL 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong Keep- I disagree strongly disagree with 48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is plainly outrageously untrue.

9t5 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times.
[1] -- From WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability.
[2] -- From WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability.
[3] -- Another interview.
[4] -- IMDb, not reliable. Per WP:IMDb
[5] -- Another interview.
[6] -- Another interview.
[7] -- Passing mention.
[8] -- Passing mention. — 48JCL 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?

9t5 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL Then tag the article with ((verify))? This is a ridiculous use of AfD. 9t5 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.

I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than 48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with 48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project. 9t5 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  9t5 and Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. — 48JCL 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]