Keep. I've read the nominator's concerns, and I appreciate the detailed review. I agree that several of the sources currently in the article are weak (like the `sunrate.com` partnership page, which is primary) or "routine" (like the `soha.vn` article about a single program launch). These are fine forverifying specific facts but don't establish notability on their own.
However, the nominator's conclusion that better sources don't exist is incorrect, and their reasoning has a few misunderstandings:
1. **On Affiliation (CafeF):** The nominator lists the `cafef.vn` article as "materials written by the organization or affiliated orgs." This is a key misunderstanding. CafeF is one of Vietnam's largest and most-read independent business news portals, not an affiliate of VietCham. Its coverage is independent and reliable perWP:RS.2. **On "Lack of Google News Hits":** The "3 Google news hits" argument from LibStar appears to be based on an English-only search. There is a significant body of reporting in reliable Vietnamese-language outlets, which are perfectly valid for establishing notability perWP:RS.
The article's notability perWP:NORG is clearly established by multiple in-depth, independent sources that are *about* the organization's history and strategic role, which the nominator'sWP:BEFORE search seems to have missed. Here are a few examples:
These sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage about VietCham, not just its routine activities. These new sources show the topic is notable. I am actively working to improve the article by integrating these stronger sources. Therefore, the article meetsWP:NORG and should bekept.Jinhma (talk)03:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not establish notability; they all appear to be PR pieces written to promote the organization. In particular, sources 3 and 4 share the same pictures, and the bottom of sources 3 and 4 have a note:Các nhu cầu phổ biến trên đã được VietCham tập hợp và đúc kết trong cuốn cẩm nang Viet Biz in Sing (https://blog.mocongtysingapore.com/vi-vn/biz). Google Translate:The above common needs have been collected and summarized by VietCham in the Viet Biz in Sing handbook (https://blog.mocongtysingapore.com/vi-vn/biz). This suggests that they are not independent sources.Helpful Raccoon (talk)07:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is hard for me to believe that a title translating to "VietCham Singapore: A decade of creating value for Vietnamese businesses" is somehow an independent source. The second source, with a title translating to "Why is Singapore an ideal destination for Vietnamese businesses?", uses classic PR tactics, starting out with a value proposition and introducing the organization in the second half of the article.Helpful Raccoon (talk)07:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you for spotting that.
Your discovery about the identical "handbook" paragraph in the **Vietnam Economic Times (VnEconomy)** and **Dân Trí** articles is correct, but it leads to the opposite conclusion.
1. **On theVnEconomy andDân Trí articles:** You dismissed these as non-independent. This misses the most important point.Vietnam Economic Times is a major, reliable national economic newspaper.Dân Trí is a major newspaper with its own Wikipedia page, operating under Vietnam's Ministry of Interior. The very fact that both of these major, independent, and reliable publications are interviewing VietCham's leadership and citing its "Viet Biz in Sing" handbook as an authoritative source for an article on Vietnam-Singapore trade is *itself* strong evidence of notability. Being treated as an expert authority by multiple major newspapers shows the organization's real-world significance and meetsWP:NORG.
2. On VTC News and CafeF: I agree with you that the titles—like "A decade of creating value"—sound promotional. While these outlets are independent (as I noted, CafeF is a major business portal, not an affiliate), you make a fair point. Because this framing is so positive, I can see why these articles may not be seen as the strongest, most independent evidence, even if they are factually correct.
I will continue to add more sources to further justify the article's notability, including the most authoritative source in the country.
One of which isNhân Dân (The People's Daily), the official newspaper and central organ of the Communist Party of Vietnam. This is arguably the most authoritative and reliable source in the country for official positions.
Why it's Notable: This is not a PR profile. It is a report on national economic policy. In this article, the state newspaper explicitly names VietCham as a key, official-level intermediary, stating:
"Through VietCham Singapore and the Representative Office of the Hanoi Small andMedium Enterprises Association, businesses can connect directly with 75 associations and more than 40 international chambers of commerce [under] the Singapore Business Federation, contributing to risk reduction..."
This single source demonstrates that the highest level of state media recognizes VietCham not as just another trade association, but as a critical, official channel for Vietnamese international trade policy and a direct link to the Singaporean government's business federation. This goes far beyond PR and speaks directly to the organization's significance.
Of course, I will continue to improve the article, adding more sources that I find. The topic clearly meetsWP:NORG and should bekept.
Please stop using AI to generate and/or format replies. The fact that two different news organizations published very similar pieces about Singapore being a "launch-pad" strongly implies that both of them arechurnalism or PR. It does not matter whether the publisher is independent; what matters is that thecontent was produced independently of the organization. The last article is just quoting a member of the Hanoi Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, it is not independent coverage of the organization.Helpful Raccoon (talk)21:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The other !votes provide no deletion rationale underWP:DEL-REASON. Biographies of those who have receivedWP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources are completely standard on Wikipedia. There is ampleWP:SIGCOV from numerous media reports already linked in the article - this article in particular ([7]) is extremely detailed, moreso than many of the articles we have for people. She was also profiled in a book on the factory she worked at Red Path published in 1976. As noted in a recent AfD by Bearian, "It's not our responsibility to parse out why significant coverage exists, or what drives editorial decisions. In fact, that's one of the unfair and untrue assumptions about Wikipedia." That the significant coverage she received does not meet individual users' personal interests has no bearing on whether she is notable.
Collecting biographical information on people covered in the media for all sorts of unique reasons has a long history on Wikipedia - there are articles on the tallest trees in the world (Hyperion (tree),Menara (tree)), the oldest trees (Olive tree of Vouves), the tallest people (Väinö Myllyrinne), the shortest people, etc. These are topics that become notable in virtue of their coverage in secondary sources, and secondary sources cover them become of what is perceived to be interesting or noteworthy. We don't have to agree with the media to understand that these articles meet the criterion of theWP:GNG.Katzrockso (talk)23:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all tallest trees have an article. Not all oldest trees have an article. And not every tallest/shortest person alive or dead, has an article.MattSucci (talk)07:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - you are correct that not every single tall/old tree or tall/short person has an article, but the ones that receive significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources do! And that's the relevant criterion that unifies whether or not these individual people/trees/etc (see also tortoisesAdwaita!) have articles.Katzrockso (talk)08:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you concede the topic is notable (asWP:PAGEDECIDE is about notable topics - as the very first sentence of the guideline describes), then the question is about how to present the information in a Wikipedia article.WP:NOPAGE provides no rationale for deletion, but rather a rationale for redirection or merging. Where would you propose we merge this information?Katzrockso (talk)00:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can understand the deletion of some supercentenarian articles, but Gadyuchkina is clearly notable. She is the oldest Russian ever (meaning that this isn’t passing notability, it will last), and she’s reported on in multiple large Russian media outlets (passingWP:SIGCOV). I’ve also added two extra secondary sources for even more notability. The nominator is infamous for hating the creation and existence of longevity related articles, so I think this is a case ofWP:IDONTLIKEIT.PrezDough (talk)23:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what, she's a non-notable person who happens to be the oldest in an arbitrarily defined geographical area. When she's dead, what will be the rationale, sheused to be the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area? Lots of people have children and grandchildren, that doesn't make them notable, and as is well established living to an arbitrary age doesn't either.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)00:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part that said “oldest ever”. She is the oldest ever validated Russian person, a very significant title which, even years after her passing, will still be remembered, both in Russia and around the world. Also, you know what does make someone notable? Having sources in a plethora of national and local news sources. And “Arbitrarily geographical area”? I didn’t know that a country that has established itself in a large area in the world for hundreds of years is arbitrary.PrezDough (talk)00:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being the oldest Russian women ever is notable enough for an article. Reaching her age is when an article could be considered already, but being the oldest Russian makes her meet the criteria for an article.User:Sneakysasquatchfan(talk)00:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator! As with all of the unnecessary supercentenarian pages that have been created and then deleted, she is nothing other than "notable" for having breathed for an arbitrarily longer amount of time than other elderly people. And, per Blade of the Northern Lights, this particular one has breathed a few years longer in a certain geographical region. Bio is nothing other than the typically mundane place of birth, unnecessary names of parents, mother died early, worked 12-hour shifts, wow!, married, had children, some died, husband died, reads books, and the highlight of the page: "she has a hearing aid". Seriously!? Everything encyclopedic you could possibly need to know about her, namely: DOB & DOD, is contained inList of supercentenarians by continentMattSucci (talk)06:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If possible, I like to evaluate each article on its merits, looking for significant coverage, and assuming good faith for translations of sources. That's true, even if I might have biases. That being said, this article passes notability. Lastly, if there is any contention about specific guidelines, then I look to see if there are other precedents or common outcomes regarding sources (say,WP:PROF orWP:RS). In this case, I recall recent examples of otherwise non-notable individuals who have received significant coverage for achieving something similarly mundane:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Raffa andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inah Canabarro Lucas. It's not our job to second-guess journalists or researchers who decide to publish ahuman interest story,qualitative study, orlived experience.Bearian (talk)10:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I had a conversation at Wikimedia NA about this phenomenon with an editor originally from Africa, who expressed exasperation with sourcing sports BLPs from Africa. In certain cultures, sports and human interest stories almost always end every news broadcast or newspaper: after thehard news comes thesoft news. "Tell me the bad news first, then the good news will make it better," goes the joke. This is the culture in Russia and the United States, but might not be true elsewhere. It's not our purpose to parse whether that's appropriate culturally. We are a mirror. The previously mentioned conversation I had at WNA was afortuitous happenstance that only occurred because of a notorious incident. That's human interest.Bearian (talk)11:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if a subject isnotable, that means that wecan have an article. It doesnot mean that wemust have an article. If there's nothing interesting to tell, a subject may be better merged into an appropriate list. --Randykitty (talk)11:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toList of the oldest people by country. This isWP:BLP1E, specifically living long enough. I searched for AfDs that contained phrase "the result was keep" and "supercentenarian" in them and got53 entries. Among them, only 20 articles have not been redirected or deleted as of now. In contrast, for "delete" result there were103 pages, for redirect27 and for merge20. The consensus is usually to delete such article even though local/national press usually provides enough coverage for such people.Kelob2678 (talk)13:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –WP:NOPAGE says that we should present this information otherwise. This person's entire notability stems from being old, and apart from incredibly minor and mind-numbing details about her life, the information is best presented as a list entry, which gives the only details of this person's life that anyone actually cares about: her date of birth, her date of death (when she dies), her age, and her country. Anything further is cruft. This person is already in three lists which give these details. First delete, then redirect to one of those pages so as to stop sockpuppets from restoring the old text.🐔ChicdatBawk to me!13:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the significant coverage in multiple Russian sources over a period of ~10 years. I know there can be an aversion for sources that are more human interest stories (sometimes called "fancruft", "puff pieces", etc) but the details in these sources appear more than routine or trivial but rather tell of a subject who lived from the time of the czars, through wars and famine, living at least 45 years past the life expectancy of the average person in her region. However, if there's a consensus that allsupercentenarians who aren't notable for something other than living to 110 or older should be redirected to a list supercentenarians I'd open to considering that down the road.Nnev66 (talk)01:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to the encyclopedic content that is present in the article being retained in some fashion somewhere. The issue is that there is no plain reading ofWP:NOPAGE (the only sound argument presented so far) that supports content deletion rather than content preservation.Katzrockso (talk)08:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What encyclopedic content would that be exactly? Maybe "Gadyuchkina married Sergey Petrovich Gadyuchkin, a naval officer, and at first, they lived with his sister's family in a single room." or "She lived with her son Oleg, but moved in with her granddaughter Olga in 2021." perhaps "In January 2022, she visited the Yasnye Zori sanitorium in Yaroslavl." or possibly, as I have already mentioned, and the highlight of the page: "In June 2023, her hearing was tested by hearing center "Rainbow of Sounds" and she was fitted with a hearing aid." Apart from her DOB, current age and future DOD, there is nothing "encyclopedic" here. Wikipedia isn't a supercentenarian fansite!MattSucci (talk)08:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical information is widely considered to be encyclopedic content, as a biography is included on nearly every single Wikipedia article on a person. That you do not find her lifeWP:INTERESTING has no relevance on whether or not the content is encyclopedic. For what it's worth, reliable sources take interest in the lives of supercentenariansin virtue of their longevity - news articles regularly include biographical information because people speculate on why/how a centenarian lived longer, what historical events they endured/witnessed, while researchers study their lives because they can provide insights into why centenarians live longer (see[8] for one example from 1979!). The point is that this individual has received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.Katzrockso (talk)20:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails to meet theWP:GNG because of a lack ofWP:SIGCOV. The only references currently in the article are primary to leagues and clubs Threadgold has played for, and the best I could find elsewhere was a brief mention at [[9]].Let'srun (talk)01:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete From GMaps, this doesn't look like a town; it looks like some sort of farm with a row of big barns. We need something better than a mass-entered stub from a census that none of us can read.Mangoe (talk)03:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perWP:NTOWN. Can be located in the Estonian census here[10], where the 2011 population is 54. The settlement code is 6946. Similar results from census results can be located here[11] (using settlement code 6946) - the population was 89 in 2000 and 48 in 2021. It is a "küla", which is the Estonian word for village.Katzrockso (talk)06:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize until just now that it's used in two articles. Just now, also using another portion of the Canadian single in the other article. --George Ho (talk)07:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno why else you thought so other than the "cover arts look better and more complete" argument. The cover art was distributed to the German/Austrian single. Canada is geographically larger than Germany (well, two Germanys combined at the time) and Austria and was the singer's home country. Well, the American single release didn't use a picture sleeve, but the United States has been one of largest markets of the music industry... and Canada's neighboring country.
Deleting both side labels of the Canadian (or American if that were displayed instead) single release would make readers wrongly assume which releases were important at the time and that the single cover art is the most important portion just because they have appealed the masses better. Also, we might be hindering readers' understanding of the historical context of how single releases, like those of "Old Man", were manufactured and then distributed long beforecassette singles and thenCD singles arrived in stores.George Ho (talk)00:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. LikeBlack Dog by Led Zeppelin features the French Single cover, even though the band is English. You can find it onDiscogs, seenhere. IMO, the country doesn't matter, but rather the content. It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles since most of them are either 1). Lost to time (with only the LP remaining) or 2). Generic covers based on the record label.Yoshiman6464♫🥚00:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. What you said sounds as if the side labels failWP:NFC#CS because it normally discourages using more than oneprominent aspect of the subject, right?
With all due respect, regardless of which portion to use, be it a plain vinyl record or a picture sleeve, the right... or an importantrelease matters more. (Portion ≠ release.) Also, a release can be a "prominent aspect" that a reader would realize and have sought for. (Shall I explain further why video game community has preferred displaying English-language cover arts, likeSuper Mario World? Well, Japanese editions ofFinal Fantasy IV andTales of Eternia are unique cases for you to study.)
Also, various single releases of "Old Man" didn't use one universal single cover art (discogs). Unsure why you've thought the German/Austrian single is the most important out of all initial single releases to display, and unsure why we must compare "Old Man" to a Led Zeppelin song.
It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles. If we encourage the practice that a cover art is more "important" than a right release, then... Well, I don't know how else to argue without committing a fallacy. How about "we may be either misleading readers and editors into making wrong assumptions or rewriting history" or...?George Ho (talk)01:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if charted in multiple countries and de-PRODded, I'm still unconvinced that the cover art (of the 2004 remix) is necessary andcontextually significant to the previously recorded song. How omitting this image would impact the understanding of the topic in question is beyond me.George Ho (talk)01:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not seeing an issue with categories with one entry, nor am I seeing a note that these categories ought to be deleted. My challenge is this: if this category gets deleted, if another page is made in the future that could fit in this category, the page would keep getting deleted or wouldn't be recreated unless somebody happens to make the connection randomly. It affects not just this page, but many others. And I don't see why these categories are less important if they have 1 entry vs 2 or 3, or 50.Ortizesp (talk)05:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would not considerHistorical figure a better redirect thanCelebrity, as I think 'famous' describes the latter better than it does the former. However, I'm not sure if it could be considered too vague? Before I decide, I'd like to know how many hits the redirects are getting.Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)07:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬06:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just came acrossMount Elbert where someone tried to cite a journal using this template. It resulted in an infobox being inserted into the references section. As this redirect is now unused in the article space, i would recommend deleting it to prevent ambiguous usage.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)02:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:RETURNTORED orrestore stub? This was previously a stub and eventually a redirect to a section on anti-elitism. That section no longer exists and there is no discussion of anti-elitism at the target. There's a brief statement listing (some) "beliefs that are in opposition to elitism" in the lead but this is neither comprehensive nor synonymous with "anti-elitism". It's tagged as{{R with possibilities}} (among others) and past discussions indicate some editors think it should be a standalone article. Until then, this redirect isn't helpful. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore stub. "Anti-elitism" is a topic of significant serious academic research and I'm shocked we don't have an article on it already. 162,000 results on Google Scholar, there are multiple books written on the subject.Katzrockso (talk)22:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. none of the stubs from before had any sources, and none of the content on them was useful (or particularly coherent). if we have no meaningful info on this, a redirect will imply we do, and promptly disappoint a readerconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Used on over a thousand talk pages, mostly category talk pages, this is being used on the wrong spaces and takes up a majority of the space on the pages it's used on. There is no useful navigation this template provides and is very intrusive. When accessing any Judaism category page, it does not in the same sense operate as a navbox or other tree templates providing navigation with links on a subject where you can directly access by clicking the link. If it were to be reformatted, then it needs a massive overhaul, but as it is now, I don't see any use here for navigational purposes. Best to just go manually through categories for now to find something specific. Also, if its meant to navigate on category pages, then why is only one category page transcluding the template instead of over a thousand category talk pages?WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All templates have less than five links needed for navboxes. Three templates, Greek, Yugoslavian, and Czechoslovak navboxes have no links to articles. None of these are needed nor meet basic navigation for navboxes.WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWikipedia:Navigation template "A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections or relevant main article and see also links within the articles' sections, as well as be merged into a larger template." Three templates have no links - being used does not mean it avoids deletion. It serves no navigational purpose.WikiCleanerMan (talk)03:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was quite ahead of the facts before they were confirmed. While it's true that it isn't confirmed for now, we can't deny there could more crossovers inPower Rangers Prime with other Hasbro/Saban IPs. I turned the article into a draft again.Fico Puricelli (talk)15:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was not a consensus to delete here. Beyond mere pointing to NEWSORGINDIA or unsubstantiated accusations of the sources being unreliable, editors did not address the significant coverage listed in the deletion discussion. By a pure head count, there are 4 keeps, 8 deletes, 2 merges, but 2 of the delete !votes suggested merging or redirecting as ATD as well. I tried to discuss this with the closer at theirtalk page, to no avail.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
Done. I went ahead and bundled your nominations.CycloneYoristalk!04:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would not considerHistorical figure a better redirect thanCelebrity, as I think 'famous' describes the latter better than it does the former. However, I'm not sure if it could be considered too vague? Before I decide, I'd like to know how many hits the redirects are getting.Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)07:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bOctober%2b13%2523File%253AOld%2bMan%2b%2528Neil%2bYoung%2bsingle%2b-%2bcover%2bart%2529.jpg%255D%255D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
