Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

16 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

Adelsberg (hill) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years, nothing much on de.wiki could be added to improve the page to meet the standards here. Not seeing much else JMWt (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Cortez (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 one secondary source cited, Google search returns one listicle-no popular coverage. Does not appear to be notable. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Varga (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)

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. Fwiw, they don’t even have a BLP on their local language Slovak Wikipedia, — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Konecký (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)

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Czech Republic. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Konecký has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Czech political party. In its current state, the article is written like a WP:PROMO and does not contain anything about what Konecký accomplished to prove that he deserves a Wikipedia article. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia likewise only provides announcement news, nothing to indicate significant coverage. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 12:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Show the guidelines that state that one must have been elected to a public office or holds a membership of a political party before they qualify for a Wikipedia article in their name. And be instructed that WP:PROMO is never a criteria for bringing an article to AFD as it can easily be deleted via CSD G11 but that is not the case here. Piscili (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it passes WP:GNG per all the sources in the article. The subject is not just a career diplomat but a permanent reprehensive of an entire country to NATO and speaks on behalf of the country. Before this appointment he served as Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is sufficient coverage that easily pass all requirements. Piscili (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piscili, As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO or even Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affair doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient.Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Other than the primary mentions, no notability with SIGCOV found anywhere. Keep !votes do not mention any so called "sources that exist". The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Neculăescu (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)

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. They don’t even have a BLP on their local language Romanian Wikipedia, yet most of the cited coverage is in that language. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Fairies (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 band doesn't appear to be notable. There's an AllMusic biography and an AllMusic review of their only album. Most of the sources used in the article don't even mention the band, and PlugInMusic doesn't seem to be a reliable source. toweli (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Poet, J (2008). "Keeping it Real: The Bastard Fairies". Native Peoples Magazine. 21: 64.
  2. ^ Chow, Greg (2007). "Bastards of new media ** By breaking away from major labels and dominating online, the DIY Fairies become the music industry's worst nightmare". Morning Call.
  3. ^ McCoy, Heath (9 May 2007). "The Bastard Fairies - Momento Mori". Calgary Herald.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orontes I Sakavakyats (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 IP at User talk:2402:7500:5ED:1187:1DCD:F9F5:3045:C938 mentioned that this article refers to Orontes I, and they are the same person. However though, I am in doubt about this. Previously, I reverted the IP's edits to this article because it seemed like blanking, and through their talk page and the talk page of this article they tried saying that they are the same person, but I am still unsure. Could other editors' give their thoughts on this? Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Aleeha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Abu Aleeha: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ali Sajjad Shah: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this BLP may have directed a few Pakistani films, but he clearly does not meet the basic GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There is important coverage. There is an article from the Dawn News. There is also coverage, for example, from The Express Tribune. He seems like an outstanding actor. --181.197.42.215 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@Wikibear47 Maybe the article is missing WP:GNG but it happens with WP:DIRECTOR. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
So just because someone is a director all of a sudden they become notable and should have an article on Wikipedia. Wikibear47 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP, Directors are generally presumed notable if they've directed a few TV shoes/films, but they still need to meet the GNG, which, as you admit, is not the case here. And like the Additional criteria state that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Therefore, I don’t think we should keep this BLP based solely on the fact that they are a director.Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikibear47 never famous, it is that if comply with WP:DIRECTOR it can be a fundamental requirement in your permanence see Crooks & Nannies if you meet WP:SINGER does not necessarily have to comply WP:GNG can be maintained, I suggest you read WP:DIRECTOR carefully. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: Directors are generally presumed notable if they've directed a few TV shoes/films, but they still need to meet the GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting the specific requirement can be considered sufficient, per consensus; in other words, no, they don't need to also meet GNG; I also would like to note that the same quotation (that certainly cannot be interpreted as something like "Pages meeting WP:DIRECTOR but not GNG should be deleted") from the Additional criteria section of the page about the notability of people (being present in the nomination and repeated twice during this discussion) has been replied to above and that it is perhaps not totally useful to copy it anymore. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 13:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuirial Hydro Electric Project (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)

Should delete due to a lack of significant coverage and reliable sources, which could indicate that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, if the content is deemed to be too promotional or lacking in verifiable information Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep although I am pretty much meh regarding the state of the article. It is not promotional, but it is not really anything at all! Not a huge facility, but it exists and the size (60MW) is large enough to attract notice. It has coverage in some sources as above, it is a visible feature in the locality. Needs improvement, not deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 sources on the page. One is a permanent deadlink and the other does not even have a passing mention. So there are no sources, no secondary independent sources, no significant coverage. This page fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. If sources exist with significant coverage in secondary independent sources that is not just an entry or passing mention or trivia news, I would reconsider my vote. This project is owned by North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited per source so why need to have separate page. If reliable secondary sources exist, some of the content can be Merged to the owner company but the other problem is that the owner company has 2 sources with deadlinks. So no sources there either and owner company can be AFDed too. I am going to have stay on delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NBUILD, this is infrastructure, and so it needs to meet GNG not NCORP. If it were under NCORP, I'd agree it should go. But also, if going by the project owner, that would be a case for a redirect I think. NBUILD suggests a redirect is normal for non notable infrastructure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But redirect to owner company North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited that has no sources, would not be right. If owner company had significant coverage and secondary independent reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP, I would gave reconsidered redirect to it. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 13:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D Fuse (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)

only reference is a searchpage. major contributing editor has dfuse in username (COI). little on google, sigcov/notability issues Canary757 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add this manually yesterday but something went wrong half way through so I used twinkle today. I wanted to clarify why it might say 2nd nomination. (beginner error-sorry) Canary757 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 13:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter (physics) (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)

Page which is an extended dictionary definition. The only source is a GitHub site of the page creator which I don't think qualifies as an RS. In any case WP:NOTADICTIONARY applies. The page was draftified on Oct 12 by BoyTheKingCanDance then moved almost immediately by the original editor MKovachev to main with this single source added. I was tempted to PROD, but am just doing an AfD which I think is more appropriate for a novice editor who is learning the ropes.. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there was no adequate page about the topic before, I argue that this one should remain. Yes, it is a self-citation because otherwise the page gets flagged as having no sources. I doubt you need a research paper about what a physical parameter is in order to cite something. MKovachev (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because as it stands, the article doesn't go beyond a dictionary definition and refers to no useful sources. It's conceivable that an article could maybe be written about the assignment of parameters to a physical system, but I fear the current article doesn't contain any material likely to be of use to a future editor, and isn't a starting-point for that hypothetical article; it'd be better to start over. Elemimele (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) (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 bio was primarily written by J1477 (talk · contribs), who has a COI with this person, even if they won’t easily admit it. The editor has been promoting Laura Mohiuddin, daughter of Mohiuddin Ahmed, since they joined Wikipedia. I reviewed the sources cited in this bio and found that most are either primary, like government websites, or based on columns and interviews. Given that Laura is an SEO expert according to her LinkedIn profile as well a freelance journalist, I wouldn’t be surprised if she sought paid press coverage for her father to secure a WP bio. Diplomats aren’t inherently notable, and this one is no exception; they need to meet GNG, which clearly isn’t the case here. The BLP reads like promotional and contains WP:OR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Mohiuddin Ahmed’s notability extends far beyond his role as a "second secretary." He made significant contributions during and after the Bangladesh Liberation War, establishing himself as a freedom fighter, senior diplomat, and key figure in the country's development.

1. Crucial Role in the Bangladesh Liberation War: Mohiuddin Ahmed was the first Bengali diplomat in Europe to publicly declare his allegiance to the provisional government of Bangladesh. His defection at Trafalgar Square in August 1971, during the "Stop Genocide: Recognise Bangladesh" rally, was a pivotal moment in mobilizing international support for the Liberation War. This act also encouraged other Bengali diplomats to follow suit, a crucial step in building the international recognition Bangladesh needed during its struggle for independence.[1][2][3]

2. Post-War Diplomatic Career: After the war, Ahmed continued to serve Bangladesh in several significant roles, including as Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Principal of the Foreign Service Academy. His postings in New York, Geneva, Jakarta, and Jeddah allowed him to represent Bangladesh in important global forums, further strengthening the country’s international standing.[4]

3. Contributions as a Public Intellectual: Besides his diplomatic career, Mohiuddin Ahmed was a prominent intellectual figure in Bangladesh. He wrote over 1,500 columns on topics such as economic development and foreign policy. [5]

4. Recognition of His Legacy: His contributions have been widely recognized by government officials, colleagues, and the media. His involvement in the Trafalgar Square rally, his senior diplomatic postings make him an essential figure in both Bangladesh’s history and its intellectual landscape.[6]

5. Service as an Ambassador: Mohiuddin Ahmed also served as an ambassador for Bangladesh, holding various senior diplomatic posts across key global locations such as New York, Geneva, Jakarta, and Jeddah. His ambassadorial roles reinforced Bangladesh's international relationships and bolstered its position on the global stage. His leadership extended to critical discussions at the United Nations and other international forums, where he advocated for Bangladesh’s interests in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.[7][8]

6. Leadership in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: In addition to his ambassadorial roles, Ahmed played a significant part in Bangladesh's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he rose to the position of Secretary. His role as Principal of the Foreign Service Academy further highlights his contributions to training and guiding the next generation of Bangladeshi diplomats, ensuring a lasting legacy within the country’s diplomatic service.[9]

7. Honors and Tributes: Mohiuddin Ahmed's contributions have been widely recognized by leading figures, including Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen, who described him as a "patriot and courageous diplomat." His critical involvement during Bangladesh's formative years in the international arena is reflected in the widespread mourning of his passing, further underscoring his notability.[10]

Given these significant contributions during the Liberation War, his diplomatic achievements, and his work as a public intellectual, Mohiuddin Ahmed meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG). His legacy has left a deep impact on Bangladesh’s diplomatic and intellectual history, meriting his inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1477 (talkcontribs) 14:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a transparent conflict of interest in relation to this subject and their vote should be disregarded (see relevant discussion at COIN, here [12]) Axad12 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Mohiuddin Ahmed: That spirit of Trafalgar Square". Dhaka Tribune.
  2. ^ bdnews24.com. "Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80". Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80. Retrieved 2024-10-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "Ex-Secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed no more". The Business Standard.
  4. ^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed dies". New Age.
  5. ^ "Remembering our freedom-fighter diplomats". The Financial Express. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
  6. ^ "Ex-secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed dies". Dhaka Tribune.
  7. ^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". BSS News. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
  8. ^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  9. ^ "Ex-Secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed no more". The Business Standard.
  10. ^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". BSS News. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
  • J1477, I think you have been cautioned previously by me and others to avoid such long AI-generated statements. Anyhow, I’m still not convinced by your keep argument and the sources you cited are not enough to establish the GNG.Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the post shows up as 100% AI generated at gptzero.me. Another reason (apart from the COI) for it to be struck from the record as AI generators don't get a vote at AfD. Fortunately for Wikipedia (and humanity generally) only humans are allowed to vote. Axad12 (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giant Records (independent) (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. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Boďa (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)

Despite playing for a professional level, I can't find enough significant coverage of this Slovak men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. In terms of reliable secondary sources, SME looks decent but GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage, while SP21 heavily relies on quotes without independent analysis. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meer Abdul Wahid Bilgrami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Islam (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masato Ishida (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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 18 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Moriyama (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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 24 games during a single season of Japan’s third league being his claim to notability. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Miura (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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 25 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Musayeva (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 sources cited in the article do not meet WP:SIGCOV. They include blogs, Medium posts, interviews, and primarily passing mentions. The article from The Caspian Post appears promotional or sponsored to me, and we also lack consensus on its reliability. Even if we ignore that, a single article cannot establish notability for the subject. I searched for more reliable sources with significant coverage but was unable to find any, only passing mentions similar to what is already in the article. The subject also fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, as their books have not been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m an author of this article. I’m willing to respond to every argument.
Before publishing the article, I have read WP:AUTHOR (Wikipedia’s Notability Guideline, section "Creative professionals"). According to this section, a person is notable if "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". My article meets this criterion, because of following reasons: (1) First of all, Musayeva is interviewed and/or cited as an expert by the mainstream media mentioned in the article (Bussiness Insider, Newsweek, Fox News and others). This means that these big media companies recognize her position as an authority on the subject. (2) Secondly, she is a YouTuber with over million of subscribers and over 40 million views of her videos, which are big numbers, especially given the fact that etiquette is not a common interest. This establishes her as one of the most popular/successful etiquette experts in the world. Isn’t that enough to claim she is notable?
(3) Moreover, the article is about her, not about her books.
I have used multiple secondary and independent sources, mostly interviews with her (which is understandable, because the interviews with a creative person are often the most fruitful source about their lives and achievements). Half of the sources are mainstream media outlets such as Fox News, Daily Mail and WFLA-TV.
I didn’t include any self-published source.
I have used two sources published by the subject of the article, which is permitted. There is no doubt to the authenticy of these sources, as they were published on the official page of the subject of the article. Moreover, the article is not based primarily on such sources (there are only two).
I tried my best to meet the Wikipedia's Guidelines.
I will be taking care of the article. She is getting more and more recognition from the media every year. There will be more sources coming in the near future. I will be updating the article and bettering it. But please don't delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlody1312: If you want to work on this article, draftification can be done. However, interviews, sources claiming the subject as an expert, and view numbers alone do not make the subject notable. What’s your opinion on draftification? Please let me know. GrabUp - Talk 09:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on this article for almost two weeks in my draftspace and for now there is no more information that can be added to the article. I tried my best to make the article as informative as it was possible, in order to give the readers a full understanding of who the described person is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
According to the Wikipedia's Notability (People) Guideline, Jamila falls into the section/category of "Creative professionals". This particular section "applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals" (exact quote).
She belongs to this category, because she is not only an author of books, but also a videoblogger/a YouTuber.
In the next passage the criteria of notability are listed, and it says that the person is notable when "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (exact quote).
The subject of the article meets this criteria. She is regarded as an important figure, i.e. an authority on etiquette. She is cited by multiple media outlets and invited to television. She gets media coverage for what she does professionally.
Moving on to the next point, of course view numbers on YouTube is not the only thing contributing to her notability, but is definitely an important one. There is a whole category in Wikipedia dedicated to YouTubers. I think having over 1 million subscribers and over 40 million views is big enough to be included into "YouTubers" category. There are subjects that have smaller numbers and still are included. Examples are: James Frederick, Matt Baume or RinRin Doll.
I feel like my article is criticised quite harshly, especially in comparison to other articles from similar categories. For example:
• Thomas_Farley (manners expert) (almost no linking to sources)
• Mary Killen (small number of sources)
• John Morgan (etiquette expert) (small number of sources)
• Judith Martin (here we have some interviews with the subject used as sources as well, and it seems like it doesn’t bother anyone; interviews with the subjects are really fruitful sources of information about such individuals)
Your statement about "primarily passing mentions" is not wholly fair, it diminishes her media presence to some extent. In the sources I gave she is asked for her opinions and suggestions as an expert and is cited as such. Most of these sources are full-talk interviews, and in others, her answers take up much of the space.
As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is coming in anytime soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, ‘As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is likely to come soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work.’ That’s why I proposed draftification. If significant coverage comes in the future, then it can be submitted for AfC review. Currently, I don’t believe the article meets notability. The additional criteria you’re quoting do not inherently make a subject notable, as it says: ‘People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.’ GrabUp - Talk 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlody1312: Also, please avoid WP:WHATABOUT arguments. If you believe those articles do not meet notability guidelines, you can start a discussion. GrabUp - Talk 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for using WP:WHATABOUT arguments. I stand my ground when it comes to other arguments, included those on notability. I already gave my reasons and arguments for keeping this article, and I guess that’s all I could do. Maybe let’s wait for other users to join the discussion. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Estonian exonyms (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; an alternative to reading this article would be reading an Estonian dictionary. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms, which resulted in the French equivalent of this article being deleted. As argued there, this list is an indiscriminate list of place names. I agree that an article about the linguistic and historical aspects of the formation of place names in Estonian would be notable, but that is not what this is. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While this Afd discussion was up, the articles for Galician/Maltese/Catalan/Swedish exonyms were deleted for the same reasoning
SJD Willoughby (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right but I know other articles on exonyms that were sent to AFD have been kept. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 9 October 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar Burgström (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:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only sources I could find were 2 directory listings in Google books. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess the Swedish sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VASP Flight 780 (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)

While tragic, there is no indication that this airplane crash meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT; if there was significant, long-lasting coverage, I can't find any sources to prove it. And I have no reason to believe there is likely to be long-lasting coverage: three deaths, crashed into the forest, and the crash was caused by pilot error.

Current three sources/links, used here and on the deWiki article, are unusable for notability/unusable.[13] is a user-generated wiki, [14] is a government report on the crash (they're required to make these for every single incident), [15] is a YouTube video of a cockpit recording. My WP:BEFORE revealed two YouTube videos:[16] [17], both unusable.

I have no prejudice against selectively merging/redirecting, should a suitable target be found. Given the limited ramifications of the initial crash, even if the topic can be shown notable a stand-alone page would likely not be warranted GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: it received reasonable coverage in Portuguese-language sources, as per pt:Voo VASP Cargo 780#Referências (note: there was no interlanguage link before). fgnievinski (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link! I'll have a look through them. The ptWiki does appear to be of better quality than the enWiki and deWiki articles.
  • [18] is user generated
  • [19] does not mention the plane crash or the plane itself
  • [20] is the same crash report (and cited four times)
  • [21] is the Aviationbase wiki again
Then there's four 1992 news reports, all dated to within a day of the accident. The ptWiki links are broken, but the headlines appear to be the fairly routine "a plane crash happened, people died" type story that, while useful, was something I knew was likely to exist and doesn't change my arguments about WP:NEVENT, lasting coverage, WP:GNG, and WP:PAGEDECIDE.
The information about a social media user visiting the plane crash is new to me, however. For reference, here are the links:
  • [22] (no author credited)
  • [23] (no author credited)
Both of these article, to me, mostly seem to focus on the influencer's trip to the site of the planecrash. They each spare a paragraph or two to sum up the crash itself, but it's mostly spent discussing the influencer. I'm also not an expert in Brazilian newspapers, especially very local ones, but I'm having a hard time finding information about either news source. juruaonline.com.br does not have an "about me" type page- all attempts to get one redirect you to their "advertise with us"/"submit a story" type pages. juruaemtempo.com.br does actually give you some information about its reporters, but none of them were apparently willing to attach their name to this piece. So far, they are still the only examples of any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE we have for this crash. And while these two sources are not enough to prove notability to me (I really don't think this article says anything that isn't already covered in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737#1990s), they might be enough for somebody else to decide this is notable. So, thank you again for finding them @Fgnievinski! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also did a quick search for sources and can't find any online newspaper articles about the event. [24] fgnievinski (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher) (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)

Autobiographical article, content is not substantiated by the sources and it does not seem possible to write more than a stub about the subject. The sources almost entirely briefly mention the subject in connection with a security vulnerability, some include short quotes from the subject, none seem to provide details on the subject themselves. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide more details about what isn't substantiated by the sources? The small handful of paragraphs without citations have information that's given in articles cited elsewhere. If you could point to any specifics, I would be happy to either show which article(s) it comes from, or if one of the more recent citations that discuss it have been missed, add them.
In a lot of cases, the notability of a subject comes from their work, so I'm a bit confused how this would be different from many other articles on Wikipedia. Is this simply a categorization problem? In the public sector circles where this information travels, the name and works are quite well known; the number of high quality sources would also suggest this.
As for your comment about it not being possible to write more than a stub, I have to disagree. There is a lot more detail about the works and their specific effects that could be added, but I didn't find it prudent for myself to add that. Additionally, WP:Stub suggests that some editors and the bot would find that 250, 300, or 500 words (this one is 650 as of this note) is an appropriate length to not be considered a stub.
Having said all of that, I note your status on Wikipedia, and understand that there is little likelihood of this article staying. NorthAntara (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else.
Being the primary author of an article about yourself is not recommended. You were extremely transparent, which is appreciated, it is just very challenging to write a neutral article based entirely on verifiable sources as the subject of the article yourself. With that said, here are some article about security researchers that have a tone and structure I'd suggest emulating: Tavis Ormandy, Eva Galperin, and Charlie Miller. Cutting inferences such as "leading to increased awareness and remediation of these issues" and the entire impact section would be the first edits I personally would make. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were the type to make bets on AfD results, I'd say this'd most likely close as no consensus like the Ian Coldwater AfD. Not sure if I'll dig in to see if I can find more sources for this one. We don't really do field specific versions of BIO for "coverage is pretty rare for this field" (except for academia) but on a quick review I'd say it's borderline for BASIC, not an outright fail. Not (yet) going to make it a !vote though, even if should it be possible or make sense to enter one for no consensus (wouldn't make much of a difference anyway since it's not a vote). Alpha3031 (tc) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagon and Trencher (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, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A clearer source eval on the newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, Where are the newly found sources? Both @Toweli: and I objected to keeping the article based on the coverage provided on 24 September, as it’s nowhere near reliable.Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, A clearer and deeper source evaluation is appreciated, along with more inputs for clear consensus. The presence of multiple references with passing mentions could mean there might be some notability, but sans SIGCOV. Hence, relisted for more inputs. If not, it can be deleted soon. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Modhalum Kaadhalum (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 actually the third deletion discussion. Originally deleted under this discussion in early 2023 prior to being recreated under alternative name which was then a no consensus at this discussion. Out of the 21 references listed on the page this is the only reference that may be notable but I cannot read it so not sure. The rest fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or are otherwise unreliable. Would recommend a redirect to the original program it is based on (Yeh Hai Mohabbatein). CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Also have a strong references from (The Times of India, medianews4u.com, Dinamalar, Indian Express Tamil). It was one of the famous show, and also notable cast. Original program and Tamil version are very different.. story was also changes. also cast also different. the original version was aired 1,895 episodes (lot of cast and long story), Tamil version was aired only 304 episodes. i am against of recommend a redirect to the original program. i don't Kmow why, You are very interested in deleting this article. This is third time for Nomination of Modhalum Kaadhalum for deletion. Strong Keep--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references that you state (which I am assuming are the ones on the page) are all unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Cast, number of episodes, it being a "famous show" has no bearing on notability unless there is significant coverage from RELIABLE sources to support. Can you link to the sources that are significant (and reliable)? Please do not link to anything that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a source evaluation: simply grouping all the TOI sources under RSNOI without properly evaluating each and every source seems inappropriate especially when the RFC on TOI does acknowledge that only some articles have issues.
After all, this is an Indian TV show and the only sources that will discuss this is Indian sources. Simply eliminating almost every source under this RSNOI from an information page doesn’t seem like a well thought-out rationale, especially when only TOI is on WP:RSPS. Karnataka 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that was not done. They were evaluated and are churnalism falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If there is one you feel isn't, please provide the link and I will have a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a perspective to have. However, being usable does not mean it can be used to establish notability. That is also the reason why I did not discredit these simply for being from the TOI. The many RfCs have concluded that the TOI needs additional consideration to determine if if it reliable for that specific reference. I checked them all and these are churnalism and promotional. If you want to provide some that you feel can be used to establish notability, I will have a look and withdraw the nomination if they are usable to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafey Kazi (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 draftified the BLP, but J1477 (talk · contribs) the creator of the BLP reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. I don’t understand why new editors aren’t using the AFC route and instead revert draftifications, which just leads articles to deletions. Anyway, the BLP definitely reads like PROMO and I suspect there’s a COI at play as the same creator also attempted to make a BLP on the subject back in 2021, but it was deleted under G11.I don’t see it meeting GNG at all, nor does it fulfill any of the criteria outlined in the additional criteria for BLPs. Fwiw, an IP 98.201.3.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also edited the BLP from Houston and COBAIT, whose CEO is Rafey Kazi, is also based there. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting finding. J1477 also previously created a BLP for Laura Mohiuddin, who works as a Digital Marketing Strategist at the U.S.-based company COBAIT, where Rafey Kazi is the CEO. This definitely proves a COI, even though J1477 isn't ready to acknowledge it on the their talk page when asked. Also, J1477 created a BLP for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who's Laura's father, according to Laura's own website. @Axad12: Do you think I should bring this up at COI/N as well?Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely. The related nature of the article subjects and the user's evasion in relation to answering about non-financial CoI gives it away. Axad12 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see that the user denied any CoI (well, technically they have denied being paid, they haven't actually denied any relationship with the subject). However, it is a demonstrable fact that as least one of the sources (PressNewsRoom) that they point to on their talk page [33] is not a WP:RS source. From the relevant link (here [34]) select 'add your story' (top right of page) and you arrive at a page starting If you are interested in adding your story, press release or other news, [etc], which presumably explains why the article is highly promotional and was only published a few weeks ago in an apparent attempt at astroturfing (i.e. installing articles in the media in an attempt to later demonstrate notability on Wikipedia). Similarly, the other source (The Org, [35]) appears to be user generated content and thus also is not WP:RS compliant. Axad12 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that concerns have been raised regarding a potential conflict of interest (COI) in relation to the articles I’ve written about Mohiuddin Ahmed, Laura Mohiuddin, and Rafey Kazi, and I’d like to clarify my motivations and address the issue directly.
    First and foremost, my intention in writing these articles has been to contribute to Wikipedia by documenting notable individuals based on research and publicly available sources. Here is the context of how I came across these figures and why I believe there is no question of COI:
    1. Mohiuddin Ahmed: Being a proud Bangladeshi, I have been drawn to Mohiuddin Ahmed for a long time because of his well-known role as a freedom fighter during Bangladesh's war of independence from Pakistan and his subsequent diplomatic career. I watched many of his TV shows and read his columns on renowned news platforms in Bangladesh. His historical significance and contributions to diplomacy are well documented, and I felt they merited inclusion in Wikipedia as part of my general interest in notable historical figures, especially those connected to South Asian history.
    2. Laura Mohiuddin: While researching Mohiuddin Ahmed’s family and connections, I came across Laura Mohiuddin a long time ago. I was particularly interested in her involvement with social entrepreneurship through the Infolady and other programs, which had a meaningful impact on empowering women in rural areas. I believed that her innovative work in these field was notable, and that’s why I decided to write an article on her. It was through this research that I learned of her professional career in digital marketing.
    3. Rafey Kazi: During my research on Laura Mohiuddin, I discovered her connection to COBAIT, and that is where I came across Rafey Kazi. I was fascinated by his dual career as an IT leader and cricketer and found that his role in both fields warranted attention. His involvement in veteran cricket, especially the Over-50s Cricket World Cup, and his leadership in the technology sector were both well documented through independent sources. Rafey Kazi has been recognized as one of America’s PremierExperts® for his contributions to the IT sector and cybersecurity. This is a significant honor that reflects his impact in a highly specialized field. Additionally, he has been featured in Fast Company magazine in a full-page spread titled 'You Can’t Get Unhacked,' further underscoring his expertise and thought leadership in technology and security. My intent in writing about Rafey Kazi was to highlight his achievements in these fields, not to promote any particular organization or person.
    4. No Promotional Intent: I want to make it very clear that I did not promote any company, link, or specific organization in any of the articles I’ve written. My goal was to ensure that notable contributions from individuals in the fields of technology, cricket, diplomacy, and social entrepreneurship were represented on Wikipedia. At no point did I attempt to advertise or promote any business or product, and I have adhered to Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability.
    5. Contribution Beyond These Articles: It’s also worth noting that I have contributed to Wikipedia by writing and editing articles on various other topics unrelated to these individuals. My editing activity reflects a broad interest in contributing to the platform, and the articles related to Mohiuddin Ahmed, Laura Mohiuddin, and Rafey Kazi just happen to be part of that larger effort to highlight underrepresented but notable individuals.
    6. Addressing Sources: I acknowledge the concerns about the use of certain sources like PressNewsRoom and The Org, and I am more than willing to improve the articles by replacing these with more reliable sources where available. However, my use of these sources was based on their availability at the time, and I believed they provided verifiable information about the subjects. I am open to working with other editors to strengthen the articles with more widely recognized sources.
    Conclusion:
    In conclusion, my contributions were driven by an interest in documenting notable figures from different fields. While I understand that the individuals I’ve written about are connected, I did not set out to write about them with any promotional intent or COI. I believe that each of these individuals has made independent contributions that deserve recognition. I remain committed to upholding Wikipedia’s neutrality standards and am happy to address any specific concerns to improve the quality and reliability of the articles.
    Additionally, most notable figures are already well-documented on Wikipedia, and as a contributor, it’s my goal to bring attention to other individuals who have made significant contributions but may not have had the same level of public visibility. While widely recognized figures tend to get covered quickly, there are many notable people in the fields of diplomacy, technology, social entrepreneurship, and sports who deserve a place on Wikipedia. My intent is to highlight these figures, particularly those from diverse backgrounds, whose contributions might otherwise go unnoticed.
    In conclusion, I want to emphasize that my intent in contributing to Wikipedia has always been with good intentions—to highlight notable individuals and organizations who may otherwise go unnoticed. I have made numerous contributions to the platform, all with the goal of expanding the knowledge available and ensuring that underrepresented figures receive the recognition they deserve. I have worked hard to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, and it would indeed be disappointing if my account were to be banned when no conflict of interest exists. My only goal was to contribute positively to the community, and I hope this is recognized in the review of my contributions.
    J1477 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    J1477, Since you continue to deny your COI, despite clear evidence, I have no choice but to report you to the COI/N at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#J1477 (talk · contribs).Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The long post above was mostly (85%) written by AI, according to gptzero.me. I'd suggest that it be scored from the AfD as inadmissable (although it is only really a denial of COI rather than a meaningful contribution to the notability of the article under discussion). Axad12 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if there was no COI, this would still fail WP:GNG. He is a run of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy Clark (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)

Google search only returns brief mentions/plot summaries that do not contribute to notability. Has been tagged for notability since June 2022. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Suvarna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual, all coverage is just routine information about updates/events from poker news sites. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coinrule (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)

Run-of-the-mill crypto company, no noteworthy third party coverage to speak of unfortunately. Had meant to nominate this two weeks ago but it slipped my mind. In any case, here it is now. Alpha3031 (tc) 06:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Tsuda (YouTuber) (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)

WP:NPEOPLE Paradoctor (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion. It would have been helpful if there had been a more comprehensive deletion nomination statement that demonstrated a BEFORE had been done instead of just a policy acronym which doesn't explain much at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPEOPLE, and article only has 2 references. Babysharkboss2!! (I spread pro-Weezer propaganda) 14:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • References from Japanese Wikipedia article:

^ https://www.pref.aichi.jp/soshiki/bunka/2017071801.html

^ a b c “津田大介公式サイト | プロフィール”. 2020年8月20日閲覧。

^ “津田大介さんらが"ヤング・グローバル・リーダー"に--世界経済フォーラム”. マイナビニュース (2013年3月14日). 2023年3月21日閲覧。

^ Inc, Aetas. “津田大介の“本性”を見た!――ジャーナリスト津田大介氏がゲストの「ゲーマーはもっと経営者を目指すべき!」第13回”. www.4gamer.net. 2019年8月1日閲覧。

^ 【津田大介】どんな仕事も初回は断らない。自分に課した辛いルールが広げた仕事の幅|VENTURE FOR JAPAN|note

^ “津田大介公式サイト | プロフィール”. 2021年1月10日閲覧。

^ “世の中の大きな変わり目を経験した若者が、将来社会を変革していく”. www.univcoop.or.jp. www.univcoop.or.jp (2021年7月19日). 2023年8月8日閲覧。

^ “津田大介「ウェブで政治を動かす!」書評 新しい民主主義を作るために”. book.asahi.com. book.asahi.com (2012年12月2日). 2023年8月8日閲覧。

^ 津田大介ツイッター2011年5月3日2022年10月26日閲覧

^ a b “津田大介さん”. すぎなみ学倶楽部 (2014年1月14日). 2021年6月18日閲覧。

^ 上田市の上田染谷丘高校を昭和38年に卒業した同級生が青木村で同級会!

^ 添田隆典 (2019年5月26日). “<家族のこと話そう>闘う両親に影響受け ジャーナリスト・津田大介さん”. 東京新聞. オリジナルの2021年5月11日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2021年3月2日閲覧。

^ 朝日新聞2013年1月31日(木曜日)「おやじのせなか」理想追い思想押しつけず(津田大介さん)

^ “大手メディアでなく「赤旗」がスクープ連発はなぜ?/FMラジオ番組 小木曽編集局長語る”. www.jcp.or.jp. 2022年5月30日閲覧。

^ a b Inc, Aetas. “津田大介の“本性”を見た!――ジャーナリスト津田大介氏がゲストの「ゲーマーはもっと経営者を目指すべき!」第13回”. www.4gamer.net. 2019年8月1日閲覧。

^ 『現代用語の基礎知識 2010』 p.1225

^ a b 藤崎麻里. “「tsudaる」が生まれた日 誰も報じない審議会…中継が始まった”. withnews.jp. 2022年5月30日閲覧。

^ 津田大介『情報の呼吸法』「第1章 情報は行動を引き起こすためにある」p.19

^ “津田大介さん、あいちトリエンナーレの芸術監督に就任へ”. 朝日新聞. 2017年12月12日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2017年7月19日閲覧。

^ a b “『あいちトリエンナーレ』芸術監督に津田大介 「新しい芸術監督像を期待」”. CINRA.NET. 2019年8月1日閲覧。

^ “日本社会の「タブー」東京で展示”. ハンギョレ新聞 (2015年1月18日). 2020年8月17日閲覧。

^ “【主張】企画展再開 ヘイト批判に答えがない”. 産経新聞. (2019年10月9日)

^ “愛知芸術祭アドバイザー東浩紀氏が辞意「善後策提案採用されず」”. 産経新聞. (2019年8月14日). オリジナルの2021年4月20日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2022年5月30日閲覧。

^ 佐藤直子、稲垣太郎「こちら特捜部 『表現の不自由展』中止の衝撃(上) 脅迫に屈する『悪しき前例』 市長や政権 攻撃あおる 芸術監督・津田大介氏『文化に対する暴力テロ事件』」『東京新聞』2019年8月6日付朝刊、特報1面、22頁。

^ “「不自由展」監督 津田氏登壇シンポ中止へ 神戸市、抗議相次ぎ”. 東京新聞. (2019年8月9日) 2021年6月18日閲覧。

^ 『中日新聞』2020年8月26日付朝刊、二社、28面、「大村知事リコール 署名集めスタート 高須氏代表の団体」。

^ “リコール署名妨害と高須院長 映画評論家らを告発”. 共同通信. (2020年9月1日). オリジナルの2020年9月1日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2021年2月28日閲覧。

^ “高須氏らが愛知県を提訴 あいちトリエンナーレめぐり”. 朝日新聞. (2020年12月22日) 2021年2月24日閲覧。

^ 『中日新聞』2020年11月8日付朝刊、二社、26面、「大村知事リコール 高須氏が活動終了 病状悪化で」。

^ “愛知知事リコール署名「83%に不正の疑い」 県選管が調査結果、刑事告発も検討”. 毎日新聞. 2021年2月16日閲覧。

^ 津田大介 Twitter 2020年11月7日 午後9:41

^ “高須院長 津田氏に「謝罪遅れたら法廷」「癌で弱っていると思ってなめるな」”. デイリースポーツ. (2020年11月8日) 2020年11月11日閲覧。

^ “愛知県知事解職請求に係る署名簿の調査の取りまとめ状況について” (PDF). 愛知県選挙管理委員会 (2021年2月1日). 2021年2月25日閲覧。

^ “知事リコール署名は83%無効 愛知県選管が不正疑い告発検討”. 中日新聞. (2021年2月2日) 2021年2月25日閲覧。

^ “署名偽造容疑で田中孝博事務局長ら4人を逮捕、全容解明へ 愛知県知事リコール不正”. (2021年5月19日) 2021年9月9日閲覧。

^ 「不自由展」をめぐるネット右派の論理と背理――アートとサブカルとの対立をめぐって/伊藤昌亮 - SYNODOS

^ “知事リコール署名めぐりジャーナリスト津田氏、香山氏ら4人書類送検 愛知県警:中京テレビNEWS”. 中京テレビNEWS. 2021年9月9日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2021年9月9日閲覧。

^ “愛知リコール署名巡り津田大介氏ら書類送検 県警、起訴求めぬ意見か”. 朝日新聞DIGITAL. 2022年6月26日閲覧。

^ “リコール署名偽造、捜査に一区切り 元市議ら7人不起訴”. 朝日新聞. (2022年3月17日) 2024年3月5日閲覧。

^ “「ダウンロード違法化」で報告書まとまる iPod課金は「合意できず」”. ITmedia NEWS (2008年12月16日). 2022年5月30日閲覧。

^ 新サイト「ポリタス」で政治を可視化する!編集長・津田大介氏に使い方と狙いを聞いた ダイヤモンド・オンライン 2013年7月18日

^ 「津田大介プロフィール」 津田大介公式サイト

^ 「津田大介」 幻冬舎

^ “津田大介さん、あいちトリエンナーレの芸術監督に就任へ”. 朝日新聞. 2017年12月12日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2017年7月19日閲覧。

^ “津田大介とジョー横溝が仕掛ける前代未聞のトークフェス『RONDAN FES 2024 in IZU』の全貌”. Rooftop (2024年8月1日). 2024年8月30日閲覧。

^ 週刊朝日 2019年3月1日号

^ プレス民主2014年3月22日 【提言】「ネットを活用し、新しい政治のうねりを」津田大介氏

^ Independent Web Journal2013年4月3日 【IWJブログ:反差別訴える市民、排外デモ隊を終始包囲】

^ ウートピ2014年6月27日 【都議会ヤジ事件】津田大介氏や蓮舫議員も参加 ネットで署名を行った市民100人が集まり今後の対策を議論

^ 弁護士ドットコム2014年6月26日 津田大介氏「セクハラヤジは日本の恥」「変わるきっかけに」イベントで意識変革訴える

^ 流行語大賞 鳥越俊太郎氏と津田大介氏、「保育園落ちた日本死ね」のトップテン入りに「賛成」産経新聞

^ "河野談話は俺じゃない!" 外務大臣に起用された河野太郎氏の人となりは 2017年08月04日 abema news

^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1456172429886181383”. Twitter. 2021年11月6日閲覧。

^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1456172434273361927”. Twitter. 2021年11月6日閲覧。

^ “津田大介、女性共演者の「トイレの音と匂いを想像」発言で大炎上!!(2017/08/17 徳間書店「アサジョ」)”. アサジョ. 2021年11月18日閲覧。

^ “津田大介氏、不都合な真実”. Togetter. 2021年10月8日閲覧。

^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1359076627460747267”. Twitter. 2021年10月8日閲覧。

^ “報道ヨミトキMONDAY #14”. ポリタスTV (2021年7月5日). 2021年7月6日閲覧。

^ 津田大介 - オリコンTV出演情報

Left guide (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Allen (bridge) (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 can find no significant or independent coverage of this bridge player, which is demanded by WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The NYT source is not significant coverage, just a mention, and likewise the bridgewinners.com source. And the bulletin published by the American Contract Bridge League is not independent. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Kumar (racing driver) (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 GNG as they have only competed in domestic categories (despite the success listed in the tables, none of the championships meet GNG for articles about them), is in clear violation of COI and reads like promotional material MSportWiki (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Palmer (racing driver) (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 GNG as a low-level domestic Australian amateur racing driver who achieved no notable success, and none of the sources are appropriate (one primary, one social media and one from a business register). MSportWiki (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Moscaritolo (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:NBIO, effectively zero reliable and secondary sources. Brandon (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete. Vincent MOSCARITOLO made a significant contribution to the end to end cryptography used by modern messaging systems today.

He is still active, publishing on Substack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4th-amendment (talkcontribs) 12:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issue resolved.
you might have posted on wrong thread 4th-amendment, this is for a nightclub shooting. Canary757 (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Canary757: the comment was actually posted correctly to this page but at the top, which made it appear misleading in the log which is where you must've encountered it. I was similarly confused from seeing it in the log. I have since moved the comments to the bottom of this AfD to rectify the issue. Left guide (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is very poorly written, and "having a Substack" is far from the threshold for notability. I do not see any secondary sources, either in the article or in a Google search. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep in here so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Duggan (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 GNG as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Ueno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Obvious WP:COI issues, an argument could possibly be made for WP:NACADEMIC. There are a handful of in depth interviews in academic journals, director of the UH Cancer Center, and while the highest cited papers on Google Scholar are with many authors with the subject in the middle, there are quite a few papers for which he is the lead/corresponding author that are relatively highly cited for the age of the paper. I'm not convinced of the magnitude of impact of the scholarly work and independence/possible journalistic COI of interview coverage is not clear.
Cyanochic (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively. He has 30,000 citations and an h-index of 84, but in a very high-citation field. However even ignoring the highly-cited consortia papers, he still has several impactful research articles as the last/corresponding author (top cites: 576, 342, 231) and as first author (223), not to mention a lot of reviews in those authorship positions (554, 538, 237, 208; 235), though I don't give these as much weight. I've collected some of the more in-depth secondary analyses of work attributed to him as first/senior author below, which might help demonstrate a stronger case for C1. These could also be used to make his research section more NPOV.
Secondary/independent analysis
  • ~60 words

    Clinical evidence of graft-versus-BC effect has been reported in a limited number of patients (2/10) by Ueno et al,2 and in one anecdotal case by Eibl et al.1 However, the study by Ueno et al was different from ours in that it included patients without progressive disease, adopted a myeloablative conditioning regimen with demonstrated antitumor activity, and performed DLI in only one case without response.

  • ~120 words

    Meanwhile, other researchers think that looking at the top of a signaling pathway doesn't make sense when what really counts is whether the cell is proliferating or not. For that reason, Naoto T. Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., [...] has looked at the activity of a key cell cycle regulator, CDK2, in sensitive and resistant tumor cell lines. They found a correlation between increasing resistance and increasing CDK2 kinase activity, which promotes cell cycling. The amount of protein or activity of proteins in the pathway steps between EGFR and CDK2 do not seem to be related to erlotinib sensitivity, according to Ueno's data. [quote]

  • ~160 words

    An update of experience at the MD Anderson Cancer Center with inflammatory breast cancer over the past 20 years was published by Ueno and colleagues [4]. [...] ... Ueno and colleagues found that 71% of all patients had a response to anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, with 12% of patients achieving a complete response [4]. In addition, [...] (truncated to avoid CV)

  • ~120 words

    Experience at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over the past 20 years was reported by Ueno et al. [87]. One hundred seventy patients [...]. ... The study by Ueno et al. also showed the importance of response to induction chemotherapy. [...]

  • ~50 words

    Ueno and colleagues reported that 74% of patients with IBC experienced a response from an anthracycline-based regimen, and 12% had a complete response. ... Many of the women in the review by Ueno and colleagues initially presented with inoperable disease. After induction chemotherapy, 95% of these patients were able to have surgery.

  • ~20 words

    Current treatment recommendations for IBC are multimodal with combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by mastectomy and then concluding with chemotherapy and radiation. This regimen is reported by Ueno et al. 10to show a [quote]

  • ~160 words

    In 2008 Ueno and colleagues published a retrospective analysis of 66 metastatic breast cancer patients, 39 of whom had undergone myeloablative HCT/AT between 1992 and 2000. Data were [...]. These initial experiences showed that an allotransplant-based approach could result in long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer, but the rate of TRM was a serious drawback. ... In the already mentioned retrospective analysis conducted by Ueno and colleagues [42], 27 of the 66 patients [...]

  • ~120 words, but by a former coauthor

    The first series of patients was reported by Ueno et al [6] from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Ten patients [...] ... The largest unpublished series was presented by Ueno and Niederwieser on behalf of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) [...]

  • ~45 words

    Erlotinib inhibits triple negative breast cancer as shown by Ueno and Zhang[30] when they generated a SUM149 xenograft model by implanting luciferase expressing SUM149 cells into mammary pads of athymic nude mice. The results indicated significant inhibition of tumour growth at doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clear Keep -- As @JoelleJay has noted, the nominator's notability guidelines omit the most relevant, WP:PROF (a notability criteria that predates and is independent of WP:N) where it is clear that Ueno is clearly more accomplished and notable than the average professor. Full-professor, head of a major NIH research program, at an R1 University, with significant third-party coverage of the appointment: ASCO-Post is the publication of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, so their coverage is very relevant. As far as the actual citation numbers, these vary from field to field hugely, but I can't remember a researcher in any field with an h-index of 84 or above ever being deleted -- medicine is a high pub. + high citation field, so the numbers need to be much higher than say Estonian studies, but my experience is that borderline is usually 30-50 in that field.
The article was probably created too early: the notability tags from 2011 were probably correct and I would have likely been on the delete side then, but much has changed since then and regardless of past COI or other mistakes, now the subject of the article is notable; thus keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google scholar has him with an h-factor of 105. He is still active, I counted 39 publications in 2024. While this may be a high citation field, and many of these papers have multiple authors, I feel he passes #C1 of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tinnesz (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 musician. A few billboard chart listings doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. ZimZalaBim talk 02:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–South Africa relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article currently contains no sources. Unable to find evidence the topic meets WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Africa, and Bulgaria. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced for 16 years. The only sources I found were primary sources from the respective governments. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - again, a reminder on WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST is needed. Obviously there is scope for expansion of the article. South Africa declared war on Bulgaria on December 13, 1941, and was one of 12 states that signed the peace treaty with Bulgaria in 1947. Diplomatic relations were then again broken off in teh context of South Africa's isolation during Cold War and anti-Apartheid struggle. Bulgaria was an active participant in the efforts to support the anti-Apartheid struggle inside South Africa (see for example [41]) as well as in international fora. Formal diplomatic relations began to be reestablished in 1990. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware of WP:BEFORE. It requires a nominator to search for sources. Why are you suggesting this didn't happen? The source you reference is "A list of positive interactions between the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) and the African National Congress (ANC)" which I am not convinced assists. AusLondonder (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shigakishi (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)

Possibly a hoax article. The non-English text given on this article is fake; the Chinese characters given correspond to Prince Imseong, whose Japanese name reading is Rinshō Taishi and Korean name reading is Imsŏng t‘aeja. The references given are incredibly vague; it's just the overall names of some really extensive works of history. Searching online I can't find any reference to this person existing. seefooddiet (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phycomin (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)

Stub was previously blanked and redirected but term is not mentioned at target, so currently it does not make a good redirect. The cyanobacteria extract contains other compounds besides phenethylamine (like phycocyanin), so redirect may be confusing. Page should be deleted unless there is consensus for a partial merge or for keeping as an article (though it does not appear notable). Mdewman6 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxor Records (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)

After doing a preliminary WP:BEFORE search, I've come up with no lead on being able to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Graywalls (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nedd Brockmann (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)

Contested redirect to List of people who have run across Australia, which is what it was originally created as. Sourcing present and via BEFORE does not establish notability for Brockmann as a businessman or athlete so bringing it here for discussion Star Mississippi 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Seeking more participation in this discussion and an evaluation of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google his name and you will realise he needs an article.. 210.84.50.88 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brussels International Festival of Eroticism (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 due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque exonyms (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)

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Johnson (actor) (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)

Couldn't find any SIGCOV, and while prolific, doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Unsourced BLP. GraziePrego (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harrison (author) (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 much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regrettably (I think he's one of best WP-journalists around) I can't disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sphere Media (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)

Seems to be a push to get this into the mainspace. Attempted to clean up the promotional tone just added by IP but it seems to be WP:TNT territory. Since last deletion discussion, the only thing I see is an announcement of a purchase which is a routine announcement (followed by multiple sources engaging in churnalism) and falls short of meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator was notified via script. Pinging other previous participants @Timtrent:, @DoubleGrazing:, @Robert McClenon:, @Vanderwaalforces:, @Jumpytoo:, @JMWt:. For the references used other than I mention in the nomination, there is a great source assessment in the first deletion discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 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 October 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything has changed from the previous AfD to make it pass WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course there is a push by the company and their people to get it into mainspace. That is why some members of the Wikipedia community are pushing back. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an improvement over the previous version, in that it no longer contains puffery. It now reads as if it was written by the corporate technical writer from the company's viewpoint. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Rammed full of "Sphere has announced" and doesn't even bother to hide the fact that it is an advert. Fails WP:GNG. Is WP:PROMOTION 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still keep, it would be quite weird, in my opinion, if a production company which made series for major broadcasters wasn't notable. Previous AfD has an alternative source assessment which I agreed with, and I think the case is even stronger now. JMWt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    comment It's hard to assess the prior alternative source assessment as the articles are not linked, but the three most promising sources from that assessment don't exactly pan out. Variety sources in the current article are about acquisition of Sienna, which is substantive and independent about Sienna but not very independent about Sphere. Same with Hollywood Reporter. Canadian Theater Review isn't linked in article and I couldn't find it on my own. What are you seeing that I'm not?
    Clicked through a bunch of sources, and they are either interviews or brief mentions, or deal announcements which I tend to think are generated from press releases. I can't find anything with my own searches (looked at Google Scholar, Google news, some targeted google web searches).
    I agree in principle a major company with real-world impact should have an article. But at this point all I have is WP:IAR and I'm not sure why we should go there for this article, which seems to be all based on corporate news and press releases. Oblivy (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't look at it like that. I think they are notable because they are a producer of television and this is shown by coverage in independent third party sources. For example 1 is not just PR puff or interview (and I've made my views known on notability and interviews before) it's a piece of reportage by a named writer. And this isn't the only piece available. If this page somehow isn't kept then we are applying a GNG standard that isn't applied elsewhere. Which in my view isn't fair. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree that the Variety interview is earned media. That's one.
    I'm not sure I understand your last sentence - yes, the NCORP notability standard is much higher and the way it's been applied to interviews is sometimes hard to defend (but the defenders of that application seem to have won that battle).
    Would like to see other views. I think you can see I'm not a hard no, but I find it really hard to get excited about an article that's all about deals. Oblivy (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On interviews, my view is that if a publication carries an interview, that shows the subject is notable in the opinion of the editor of the publication. (If they didn't think it was notable, why would they be covering it?) If it is a RS and the piece is clearly more than puff or a PR then for me that's an indication of notability.
    Fwiw the piece I offered was from Deadline. There are also pieces in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. It strikes me that this is more than enough to meet the GNG in normal circumstances.
    On "excitement", I just try to assess whether decent publications have covered the subject, my feelings about the contents of the article are irrelevant. JMWt (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article obviously does need significant cleanup for advertorialism, but making notable television series and films is obviously a valid notability claim for a production company. It's obviously terrible as written — I just had to add wikilinks to its three big multi-award-winning television series (Sort Of, Transplant and The Porter) that were mentioned in the article only as unlinked names, and the article is completely forgetting to even mention other important stuff like 19-2, Bad Blood, This Life, 1995 (big current box office smash with multiple current award nominations pending) and The Dishwasher. It's a bad article in its current form, you'll get no disagreement from me about that, but there's a lot more to this company, and a lot better sourcing available for it, than shown — in addition to the Variety and The Hollywood Reporter stuff described above, there's also plenty of coverage in publications like Playback and RealScreen, that might have been overlooked solely because non-Canadians haven't heard of them, and a company that has existed since 1984 in the francophone media sphere (pun semi-intended) before expanding into English content only within the past decade, there's also almost certainly a lot of coverage in French that would entail trawling BANQ instead of just a Google search alone.
    Also, the page was created by a long-established Wikipedia editor who is not known to have direct personal connections with Sphere, so it isn't an obvious conflict of interest by the company (especially since I really deeply doubt that the company would forget to mention major, major things like 19-2, Bad Blood or 1995 at all.) Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Josette Baisse (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 feel like this article should be deleted because it's too insignificant of a person to have their own Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf Michael (talkcontribs) 00:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]