The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete,Merge per comment below by Miminity, I can be convinced a Merge is fine here. This content should be placed under a food of Japan or cuisine type article and does not need a split article by itself.Iljhgtn (talk)15:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: PreviousWP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit23:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Same problems the article had years ago, when the article was deleted. A local wrestler who worked on independent promotions. No notable. Sources are just WP:ROUTINE results, with no in-deep coverage or focus around the wrestler.HHH Pedrigree (talk)19:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit23:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Maybe, as aATD there could be a place to merge or redirect. A search turns up the sources in the article and some that are not, that are consideredprimary or otherwise notindependent, whichdoes not advancenotability. A problem is that the article is an extendedresume.Biographical content is limited to "Steve Adkins (born April 29, 1979)" (the lead) and two sentences in the "Personal life" section. The article looks like apseudo biography being void of "full and balanced".— Precedingunsigned comment added byOtr500 (talk •contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep; I think I made an error in opening an Afd since it caused confusion about what the purpose of it was. It certainly wasn't about a full merge or anything about deletion but for consensus. Apologies for the misunderstanding; I'll go ahead and start editing theGeorge, Duke of Clarence article as best as I can and as soon as I possibly could.(non-admin closure)Omnis Scientia (talk)13:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this isn't about deletion. This is for eitherpartial merging orrenaming article withGeorge Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. My main concern is that the fork article is longer than the article about the person. Most of this could fit into the biographical article. I would suggest moving the sections about the downfall of the Duke of Clarence to bio article while making this one entirely about the incident of the miscarriage of justice - which was what the article was about initially, as I understand.
It's also worth noting that the history behind the Duke's fall is far more complex, with his brother using this incident more as an excuse to get rid of him for past treasonous behavior like changing sides during the Wars of the Roses and going against his brother the King.Edit: Note that this isn't about a full merge. Sorry I didn't make that part clear. I'm not AfD savvy lol.Omnis Scientia (talk)22:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, oh it definitely is, the miscarriage of justice itself which is why I'd say rename the article and move the bio bits to the Duke of Clarence article which has barely anything in it.Omnis Scientia (talk)08:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / oppose merge – this is a nonsense proposal: the article was promoted to FA less than two months ago. Were all the FAC reviewers dim in failing to suggest that it should be rolled into theGeorge Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence article? At 4,000+ words it would disproportion that 1,500-word article to a ludicrous degree.Tim riley talk08:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley, hence the other proposal for renaming the page, at the very least. Sorry if I caused confusion. I've rewritten the nomination to make my point more clear. I wasn't sure how else to do it otherwise other than this way.Omnis Scientia (talk)08:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say by "renaming the page, at the very." But the articles ain't broke and don't need fixing. Do you not imagine that a few of the FAC reviewers would have suggested merging if they thought it sensible? The title of the article was extensively commented on at the FAC review.Tim riley talk08:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I'd say the fact many of them commented on the fact it was an "odd title" is kind of my point as well. The article is not broke, I agree, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on further a bit. TheGeorge, Duke of Clarence article is just not good and could be MUCH improved in this way as well.Omnis Scientia (talk)09:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley, But that would require moving some of the info from this article to the next one and changing this one's scope a little bit to be less focused on the Duke of Clarence and more on the other people in the article. Given it was an FA, I wanted a bit of a consensus and wasn't comfortable moving ahead on my own.Omnis Scientia (talk)13:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to do so, of course! Its not about a full merge or anything like that at all. I WANT to improve the original article since this is a subject I actually like and know a bit about. All I wanted was a bit of consensus behind me before I go ahead. I don't want to get into trouble afterwards because I have once before for changing the scope of a Good Article Candidate.
Also something I wish to point out to @Gog the Mild and @Dudley Miles. Its not about article length but about improving one article while reshaping this one a bit. Really, really sorry if I haven't been clear about that and caused a panic or misunderstanding.Omnis Scientia (talk)13:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Oppose merge. It is a bog standard subordinate article, like thousands of others. In particular I fail to see why the length of this or any other article is relevant.Gog the Mild (talk)11:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is fine and was approved at FA. The greater length of the main article is because no one has yet brought it up to the same standard.Dudley Miles (talk)11:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable academic. She has had a number of positions at assistant professor or program development associate level over the last thirty years, mainly lecturing. No evidence of tenure or mentoring of PhD students. Excluding her thesis, 6 publications of which she was author of 2 and a book co-editor of the other 4. Total citations that I can validate since her thesis in 1997 are 307, two co-edited books have 202 & 101, the others are negligible. Only award is an honorary degree which looks dubious. Page has a complex history with AfD concensus draftification, abandoned draft and several PRODs; full history has been resurrected. Version prior to some cleaning (1) was full of name dropping, peacock and promo; current cleaned version still contains some unverified claims. Overall conclusion is failsWP:NPROF, publications areWP:MILL for an academic and do not meetWP:NAuthor, nothing for generalWP:GNG. Page might need salting.Ldm1954 (talk)22:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She has anh-index of 3 onScopus. Typical h-index values for someone early in their career (0-5 years since PhD) would be 3-10. For mid-career (5-10 years) an h-index of 10-30 would be considered competitive at many universities. World-class top-tier researchers nearing the end of their career would have an h-index of at least 60. Those numbers are roughly halved for someone working in the humanities fields. I note that Mazzucelli got her PhD about 30 years ago, implying that she'd need an h-index of at least 10 to be considered notable. However, we don't have notability guidelines based on this, so take it for what it's worth. I agree that she doesn't meet notability criteria forWP:NPROF but I am not sure aboutWP:NAUTHOR, although Ldm1954's argument above seems compelling. I wouldn't object to re-draftifying. ~Anachronist(talk)19:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the in-depth comments of the Nom.Fred Flintstone be proud. We are never too old to learn. The alternate notability index provided byAnachronist may not be a Wikipedia notability guideline criteria but nevertheless, is an indication of likely notability (or not). Maybe worthy of a discussion or RFC atWP:NPROF. A problem withWP:NAUTHOR is that the subject is not an author but just published works related to the academic field.. --Otr500 (talk)14:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a promotional mess with not enough research/awards/etc. to justify keeping. Normally an honorary degree is enough for a WP:PROF keep, but one from a 2018-founded institution that hasn't enough credibility for a notable Wikipedia entry of its own is not sufficient. --Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete it may lack significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. The article relies on self-published or promotional material --Hka-34 Jyli (talk)08:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I could not find any non-routine coverage of this beyond the site for the capitol grounds themselves. Likely better incorporated into a list of public art installations in the city.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toWashington State CapitolDelete - I also searched forindependent significant coverage but was unsuccessful. It does not make sense to merge/redirect it to a list of public art installations because it is not art, it is a series of informational plaques or "markers" with text about each county. That is not the same as public art or public sculpture. Even Washington State doesn't describe it as art, and the Fact Sheet lists the "artist" as"Unknown", so for all we know it could have simply been designed by the sign shop or foundry who cast the plaques. The sourcing consists of one sentence in an Arcadia Press book, (there have been many discussions about the reliability of Arcadia books which are mainly written for tourists); the listing in the Washington State database; and a draft of a proposal for Heritage Park itself, which is a work-for-hire pre-design study between the capitol and two consulting groups. Maybe it could be merged into theWashington State Capitol article in the subsection Art and monuments where it is already mentioned?Netherzone (talk)21:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although I mention aboveWashington State Capitol Art and monuments, neither that target, nor Hertitage Park (Olympia) is great since these trail markers are neither a public art work, nor a monument.Heritage Park (Olympia) is a one sentence stub sourced to itself which doesn't help much. I still think deletion is appropriate for these non-notable trail markers, however I am now wondering, if there is a consensus for merging, whetherList of public art in Olympia, Washington is a better target because there is a sentence there. The only thing about this that seems like an awkward (and inaccurate) merge is that it is not "public art", it's interpretive signage, However because it fails bothWP:GNG and notable engineered constructWP:NBUILDI think the best solution is d*elete.Netherzone (talk)22:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote to redirect to Washington State Capitol as an alternative to deletion. The entry on the List of Public Art in Olympia, Washington should probably be removed (since it is not public art) and any associated content on the trail markers can be moved to the redirect target.Netherzone (talk)14:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another Olympia public art installation. This one has two sources, but one of the sources has a single sentence about the piece. Should be included on a list of public art installations in the city (and a page for the artist, who appears notable)Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toSusan Point. The sculpture itself is not notable, however theSalish artist who created it, Susan Point, is indeed notable. As mentioned by the nominator,Generalissima, the newspaper sources don't mentionSea to Sky, and the sources that do are not independent. As a reasonable alternative to deletion, there is an excellent target article to which it can be redirected and the two sentences from this can be merged there.Netherzone (talk)20:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am unable to find anything approachingWP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. The article also seems to have been heavily edited by the subject himself.JTtheOG (talk)19:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet theWP:GNG. The only sources in the article are match statistics or routine signing announcements from teams the subject played for.Let'srun (talk)00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested redirect. Zero in-depth coverage of this battle. In fact, very little beyond the short blurb in the current single source. FailsWP:GNG. Could restore the redirect as an ATD.Onel5969TT me19:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasno consensus. While various different policies and guidelines were referenced in the discussion, but with relatively minimal participation and limited analysis of sourcing (in English or other languages) with three relistings a consensus has not formed.Goldsztajn (talk)12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Super 8 T20 Cup was much more selective than theNational T20 Cup, hadT20 status, and was the precursor of thePakistan Super League. Pakistani publications regularly covered it while the event was ongoing ([2],[3],[4],[5]), and I'm sure there must be some offline coverage of it inalmanacs. Since Wikipedia also functions as an almanac (WP:5P1), we must cover T20 matches as part of our almanac coverage.
The tournament was definitely notable, but I'm not sure about the individual seasons that were not nominated. In any case, the matches held in those seasons shoulde be part of our almanac coverage. You could request a merge and renaming of those seasons so that they resemble maybe in the form of2011 season in Pakistani cricket, and so on, and add those matches there, but it is not forWP:AFD to decide. Please initiate aWP:RFC onWP:CRIC, so that all members are on the same page and we do not have selective purges due to the lack of WP:AFD participation.Veldsenk (talk)12:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the point about the almanac is a good one from Veldsenk. This article also is notable when factoring Pakistani sources in addition. Which is permissible.Iljhgtn (talk)02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? You citeWP:OSE, which states, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist..." Neither of us were making arguments on the grounds of "...whether other articles do or do not exist...", but were instead arguing in support of a Keep based in part onWP:5P1. @Veldsenk might have more to add?Iljhgtn (talk)17:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches" - which is partWP:OSE.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. As I mentioned inmy !vote in the ongoing NSONG RFC, I believe reviews (or other sources) about a full album should be able to contribute to a song's notability if the song individually receives substantive discussion in those sources. The amount of sourced detail this article contains—on the song's style, lyrical content, critical reception, the process of securing the sample—suggests strongly to me that this topic has received such substantive discussion and is therefore notable.ModernDayTrilobite (talk •contribs)14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I can only find links to gethub and reddit, some videos on this software, nothing for reviews or anything we need for RS.Oaktree b (talk)19:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think keeping the article does not hurt anyone, I can also improve it if that is the issue. Please bare with me, I do not participate often in these discussions and do not know all the rulesTarkinTor (talk)12:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasspeedy keep/IAR "Never even heard of it" is not a deletion rationale and sourcing has already been shown to exist. Let's not waste a week of community timeStarMississippi22:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the article's reference list, there's in-depth coverage inLinux Journal. I'm sure there have been other articles in the tech press though it's hard to search for them given the tool's very generic name. (If I have time I'll do some more digging and post back here.) —Psychonaut (talk)20:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Even though it was originally developed by SuSE, it is now used by several other distributions, for which it is the chief system update tool. If YaST is not notable as an update tool, I don't know what is. —Tonymec (talk)03:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep, an inappropriate nomination with zero justification provided. A massive number of sources exist, the package has been around and in use for decades.Ldm1954 (talk)13:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Per the article's reference list, the topic has attracted in-depth coverage (totalling about 13 printed pages) in at least four independent reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk)19:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasspeedy keep. "Obviously not notable. Just a random email client." is not grounds for a nomination. Let's not waste a week of community time.StarMississippi22:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The software has significant independent coverage in the "The CJK package for LaTeX 2ε — Multilingual support beyond babel" by Werner Lemberg (TUGboat 18(3):214–224, 1997) andCJKV Information Processing: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese by Ken Lunde (O'Reilly, 2nd ed., 2009; mostly on pp. 646–647). It's also the subject of multiple scientific conference papers which, although not entirely independent of the software, did at least undergo peer review:
K. Handa, M. Nishikimi, and S. Tamura. "Mule: A MULtilingual Enhancement to GNU Emacs." InProceedings 1993 International Networking Conference (INET 93).
K. Handa, M. Nishikimi, S. Tomura, and N. Takahashi. "Unified and Extensible Mechanism for Multilingual Text Processing." InProceedings of the Fourth Pacific Rim Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI '96).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Note to nominator - we please need a better nomination statement, and you need to do aWP:BEFORE.GiantSnowman12:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above as well as the Los Angeles Times article referenced in the article as well as the book source also referenced in the article. PassesWP:GNG in my view,Atlantic306 (talk)20:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This movie is referenced inLife Is Strange among several other films commonly considered cult classics of note. In my opinion, this media contributes to other media, which means it's part of history and should not be eliminated. Also, lost media is an increasingly growing problem and we wikipedians have no business adding to it.Halonswine67 (talk)16:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independentreliable sources.
"'Invasion of the Bee Girls' Scoring High Across U.S.".Boxoffice. Vol. 103, no. 14. 1973-07-16. p. 14.ProQuest1476163723.
The article notes: ""Invasion of the Bee Girls," a science-fiction thriller distributed by Centaur Releasing Corp. of New York, is "buzzing" around the country and ringing up spectacular grosses, according to the distributor. It received an 80-theatre break in the Milwaukee-Chicago-Cincinnati area. The Belair Drive-In, Cicero, Ill., had a holdover week with the second round out-grossing the first. In one week on a 15-theatre break in San Francisco, the film grossed $60,000. Other openings have been announced for New Orleans, Detroit, Dallas, Kansas City and Washington, D.C."
The article notes: "Michael “Finatik” Mule and Isaac “Zac” De Boni, better known as the production duo FnZ, were scouring YouTube for fresh sounds when a clip from the obscure ’70s horror movie “Invasion of the Bee Girls” caught their attention. They turned a portion of the soundtrack into a spooky sample, which would eventually accompany the viral hook — “21, can you do something for me?” — on Drake and 21 Savage’s “Rich Flex,” which is No. 22 on Variety‘s 2023 Hitmakers Top 25."
The review notes: "Invasion of the Bee Girls. A 1973 film of which it could be said that it was the best of its sort up until Infra-Man. William ("Big Bill") Smith, of Hell's Angels on Wheels fame, stars as a G-man tracking down a strange epidemic in which men drop dead of acute coronary attacks. Post-mortems reveal that all the victims were suffering from terminal sexual fatigue at the times of their deaths, and Big Bill's investigation further reveals that all the women in a secret scientific center have used radioactivity to change their cellular structure so that they are, in fact, queen bees. Anitra Ford and Victoria Vetri are the two chief queen bees, but don't realize, alas, that the radioactivity has not merely multiplied their sex drives but also made them sterile. No matter; they spend their off-hours in a sort of Redi-Whip cocoon that not only turns them into bees but gives them a facial and a hairdo at the same time."
The review notes: "Scripted by novelist and future director Nicholas Meyer ('Time after Time'), this was one of the rare films of its time to combine sex, horror, wit and something of a pre-Tarantino trivia sensibility. This randy spoof of 1950s science-fiction movies stars William Smith, a burly actor generally cast as a thug, as a debonair spy named Nell Agar -- referencing 'The Brain from Planet Arous' star John Agar. When various male chemical-research lab workers perish of sexual exhaustion, the two-fisted Smith investigates, assisted by former 'Playboy' centrefold Victoria Vetri. For all its sleaze potential, the film is attractively cast and designed, with Anitra Ford especially memorable as the coolly sexy doctor researching bees and royal jelly as counteragents to ageing. In a classic instance of disreputable distribution practices, the movie was put back on the streets in 1977 under the misleading title 'Graveyard Tramps'."
The review notes: "Invasion of the Bee Girls is rather an improvement on Roger Corman'sWasp Woman, mixing sci-fi, nudity and soft-core sex angles to fairly interesting and certainly exploitable effect. Business in ballyhoo houses and drive-ins should be okay provided the Centaur release is backed with a strong co-feature. Documentary specialist Denis Sanders (Soul to Soul directs it routinely and Nicholas Meyer's screenplay makes hardly any sense, but as assembled sans screen credit byEnter the Dragon producers Fred Weintraub and Paul N. Heller (who gets "paged" in the film at one point), it moves along at a nice clip, holds the interest throughout and doesn't stint on the nude visuals. ... Even so, the transformation scenes are quite nice, enhanced hugely by Charles Bernstein's eerie music, and the cast is somewhat better than average, with Osmond and Miss Ford registering strongly. Gary Graver's fuzzy cinematography tends to make the production look tackier than it really is."
The review notes: "This forgotten 1970s exploitation flick is worth a watch for a reason beyond its fantastic title — a surprisingly witty script from newcomer Nicholas Meyer (who would later be Oscar-nominated for The Seven-Per-Cent Solution). In Peckham, California, men are dropping like flies and the reason seems to be sexual exhaustion. No great surprise because the women of the town are being transformed into queen bees, who are sucking the life force out of their menfolk. The answer? “Total. Sexual. Abstinence.” It’s a real pleasure: “Can you cross a man with a horse?” asks a special agent to geneticist. “You’d get a centaur, mythologically speaking.” “Realistically speaking, you’d get a summons for bestiality.” (85min)"
The book notes: "Invasion of the Bee Girls opens with a prominent scientist (married) found dead from extreme exhaustion in a motel room. Julie Zorn, a research librarian who worked closely with him, is accused by the film’s protagonist, government agent Neil Agar and Zorn’s eventual love interest, of being involved in his death. “We balled, and we balled, and we balled ...til he dropped dead,” she sarcastically counters. Her statement is prescient, however, as one man after another is soon found dead in the small town of Peckham. Cause of death is “over-exhaustion in the act of sexual intercourse,’ according to the county sheriff. (One man, a closeted homosexual, escapes this type of death. He is deliberately run over by a car— driven by a spurned Bee Girl—instead.)"
The book notes: "Half a decade on from the zenith of the 'swinging' (late) Sixties, Invasion of the Bee Girls provides an intense image of predatory female sexuality that can be interpreted as an anxious fantasy reaction to the discourses of 'free love' and female sexual emancipation in circulation in the early 1970s. Indeed, Rebecca Coyle has observed that:
The technology that empowers the Bee Girls has distinct parallels to the 'technology of the contraceptive pill (introduced in 1960 and widely available from the mid-1960s on). Both transformed women's physiology and changed gender relationships and power. (personal communication, January 2008)
The film's score emphasizes the separate gender sensibilities of its protagonists, enriches these through allusion and - finally - eludes closure. If anything, its SF elements and, specifically, its use of the Bee Girl motif give it an even greater symbolic 'kick'. Any implicit castration anxieties that may be seen to have pervaded film noir are all the more resonant in Invasion of the Bee Girls, given (actual) bees' mating arrangements, whereby male bees die after mating when their penises shear off during sex in order to deliver the semen the queen bee requires (dark pleasures indeed)."
The review notes: "Early in their television career, critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert declared this to be one of their favorite "guilty pleasures" and its reputation was set. Add in the presence of Playmate Victoria Vetri, who has a dedicated following of her own, Anitra "Big Bird Cage" Ford, and a gloriously wacky plot involving the "Queen Bee" and her conquests, and you've got prime Bee-movie camp fun. The murky audio sounds as if it were coming from a drive-in speaker, which ideally is the best way to experience this compellingly quirky and perversely comic thriller. Written by Nicholas Meyer, who later directed Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. AKA: Graveyard Tramps." The review gives the film three bones.
The review notes: "Beware beautiful women in dark sunglasses in this honey of a "B" film. Here's the buzz: William Smith stars as a federal agent investigating a series of mysterious deaths. Anitra Ford, of The Big Bird Cage fame, stars as the queen bee, who recruits unwitting women into her hive of seductresses. Their male victims die of sexual exhaustion. Cliff Osmond, a veteran of Billy Wilder films (The Fortune Cookie, Kiss Me Stupid, The Front Page) costars as the baffled sheriff. The murky audio sounds as if it were coming from a drive-in speaker, which ideally is the best way to experience this compellingly quirky and perversely comic thriller. An early screenplay by Nicholas Meyer, author of The Seven Per Cent Solution, and the director of Time After Time, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. This was released the same year as The Sting. Probably a coincidence. AKA: Graveyard Tramps"
The book notes: "As every schoolchild knows, when Queen Bees make love, the males of the species sacrifice their lives along with their seed. This racy premise provides the flimsy basis for Invasion of the Bee Girls, a film that proves that these versatile insects can contribute just as effectively to a softcore porn feature as they can to an absurd disaster epic. This time, the millions of swarming bees create a cocoon of sorts around formerly plain housewives and transform them into glamorous "bee girls." As the science-minded publicity for the film explains, these honey pots "have acquired the genetic characteristics of queen bees whose male partners die following sexual consummation." This exciting new technology has been developed at a government subsidized facility called Brandt Institute, not to be confused with Brand X Institute. Not surprisingly, most of the men associated with this super-secret research operation have recently died from massive coronary attacks which the county coroner cleverly diagnoses as related to sexual fatigue."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KeepNebula Award winner. Analyzed inScience Fiction Studies,[13][14],Women's Studies Quarterly,[15] andBiography.[16] The TV episode based on it reviewed inThe Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies.[17] The novella is covered in the biographyThe Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon (Julie Phillips, 2015) and was adapted as a play.[18] I'm sure I'll find more, and will use them to improve the article, but I think this is sufficient to justify "keep".Schazjmd(talk)19:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Schazjmd. The Nebula award is one of the two biggest awards of speculative fiction - winning a major category is likely enough by itself, but it isn't conceivable that a major winner hasn't received substantive critical attention. It has also been anthologized dozens of times.Vanamonde93 (talk)20:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Significant independent coverage exists in the booksA Practical Guide to Red Hat Linux by Mark G. Sobell (O'Reilly, 2003) andMastering Linux by Arman Danesh and Michael Jang (Wiley, 2006). There's maybe a dozen pages in the former and one in the latter. A Google Books search shows dozens of other results; most of them seem to be brief mentions but I didn't carefully check all of them. —Psychonaut (talk)00:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doom's github repository has 20k+ stars. For reference,Linux has 192k,spacemacs has 23k. Doom is a popular configuration framework for Emacs these days, and I don't think it's worth removing.Kuromedayo (talk)22:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. Note that EMMS is also an abbreviation for Electronic Media Management System, which muddles search results a lot.Schützenpanzer(Talk)00:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural keep. A one-word nomination is not something for the community to spend time on, among others because the article has been nominated twice before - ending inkeep andno consensus. You are absolutely obliged to address the issues and arguments from the previous discussions, but no. You only wrote one single word.Geschichte (talk)21:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep. Withdrawn by nominator. Editors interested in a possible Merge can discuss this prospect on the article talk page.LizRead!Talk!04:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:GNG andWP:SIGCOV and has not citations in the article. Only mentions are in bibliographic databases. In the context of academic journals, this was apparently published in a time period between 1930 and 1980 as a local (country-specific) journal of chemistry though it has been difficult to pin down exact dates. Searching in CAS (chemical abstract service) SciFinder for the journal results in only 86 articles catalogued, and most of those seem to be reviews of general chemistry topics for the Brazilian audience (e.g. Armentano, M.A.Origin and development of cosmetic science and technology (1979), 87(527), 143-8). No external coverage that I can find beyond database listings in WorldCat and CAS. A few libraries may still have hard copies per WorldCat for those that can + want to look deeper via interlibrary loan to see if scientific contributions were significant. My prod was removed with the comment that this was an important scientific journal mid-century, but sourcing is still needed to back the notability claim.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)18:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Based on sources that Headbomb has provided and the edits planned by BaduFerreira, I agree that merging pages about the various successive journals together or to their parent society pages is a better course of action. Not closing yet to avoid cutting off discussion. Willing to help locate articles from these journals (ping me).Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)03:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very fascinating article! Thank you for finding it. On PDF page 3 (article page 447), it says that the first edition of the journal published by theBrazilian Chemical Society (SBQ) (more info on this later) in 1929 was titled theRevista Brasileira de Chimica, but the second edition published in 1931 was titled theRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Chimica. The title changed again in 1933 to spellChimica (chemistry) asQuímica, which is the modern-day spelling, due to orthographic changes in the Portuguese language. That means that the two articles (Revista Brasileira de Química andRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química) are about the same journal, so I think a merge is the proper course of action. The source describes other Brazilian chemistry societies, such as theAssociação Química do Brasil (Chemistry Association of Brazil) that occasionally butted heads with the SBQ, theAssociação Brasileira de Química (Brazilian Association of Chemistry), and then a newSociedade Brasileira de Química that was founded in 1977 after the creation of the Brazilian Association of Chemistry. The source specifically mentions that the two instances of theSociedade Brasileira de Química are distinct and separate organizations. We could probably use this article to flesh out theBrazilian Chemical Society article. I'll try to make some improvements to these articles in the next day or so!BaduFerreira (talk)21:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy keep. You made about 30 AFDs today, where at least some apparently lack effort. You have to include an actual argument for lack of notability. He is an author, so you would need to check for book reviews. I found 2 in 20 seconds[19][20] and it's not myWP:BURDEN to scroll down for even more reviews.Geschichte (talk)21:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural keep. Reason 1: it's not relevant what you "think", you need actual reasons and arguments as to why it is a hoax. Reason 2: you have started about 30 AFDs today, and we don't necessarily have the capacity to discuss so many. Reasons 1 and 2 are tied together, because you leave a much larger burden on the community when you don't write a real nomination.Geschichte (talk)21:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This immigration judge does not meetWP:GNG orWP:BIO. She has been mentioned recently in the news in relation toDetention of Mahmoud Khalil, but there is no significant coverage of her personally, and prior to Khalil's case, hardly any mentions of her at all. One source, lawyerdb.org, scrapes data, and the other is non-independent.FactOrOpinion (talk)16:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total dearth of third-party sourcing independent of the subject, so fails WP:SIGCOV. As a BLP it needs to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES. It does not, relying as it does on primary sources, in breach of WP:PTS. Fundamental WP:ANYBIO fail.Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi08:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My reason is that the article receives no coverage beyond two lines in Jacques Tony's source, and doesn't passWP:NEVENT. It remained a stub for years with no improvement at all.Shakakarta (talk)16:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage about this battle. Only one source on the page and not enough coverage in it to warrant a page on this battle.RangersRus (talk)12:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Is this even a battle?Mir Jafar won a decisive battle against Mir Habib. That's all I found for this conflict. No coverage as previously deemed by redirects[21]. Moreover the article was created by a sock who had a history of creating messy articles.Shakakarta (talk)15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as the main section "battle" part of this article is very short so the necessary parts can be easily merged within any article related to this subject. And notably this article is also created by a sock as well.Imwin567 (talk)18:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Battle too short" or "messy, messy, messy", could be sort of weak arguments for deletion. However,notability is an issue. Other than Wikipedia, I found a supposed official source on (Medinipur) that is confusing. It begins, "...conflicting accounts of how the name Medinipur came to be". This apparently includes the spelling. This article uses the spelling "Midnapur". The source uses the spelling "Medinipur", "Midnapore district" and Midnapore (apparently an alternate spelling), using that later a few times. At first, I assumed the author was either mispelling or confused as the opening sentence uses "Second Battle of 'Midnapore'". On that note: How many "Second Battles of "whatever place" was there to include the year in the title? More confusion and no links or mention of the "first battle". Without some etymology source, this article just advances confusion. The article jumps from the "Background" section to the "Battle" section but has some missing links.Conclusion: The article is messy beyond repair, the battle section is too short to impart any actual knowledge, and notability is an issue because of the lack of sources (two sources on the article may or may not be relevant), so there is nothing to salvage or merge. --Otr500 (talk)18:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name and spelling of the location not matching. Poor sources with no significant coverage about this "second" battle that lacks Notability.RangersRus (talk)21:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Barely had coverage. Not more than 2-3 lines of coverage. No information of how this "Battle of Paranda" went through, clearly not salvageable.Shakakarta (talk)15:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that it is likely unsalageable so 1st choiceDelete: However it would seem this would be a good candidate for 2nd choiceATD,Merge:toMaratha Confederacy which the subject is part of, and 3rd choice merge (Already too large) toRajaram I --Otr500 (talk)17:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I have a source to expand the article, which is Chhatrapati Rajaram and the Maratha State by Jaisingrao Pawar. It mentions Bidar Bakht's campaign against Rajaram from pages 245 to 247.[22] I can add it up in the article and expand it.
"Both armies met once again in the fields of Paranda. Rajaram dispatched Dhanaji Jadhav to meet the prince while he encamped 12 miles east of Paranda. A fierce battle happened, and the Marathas were once again defeated and forced to flee towards Ahmednagar in November."
WP:SIGCO is not a valid reason for deletion? Enlighten me. The source you have given never mentions "Paranda" at all. No need to place templates when one is sure that the problem can't be fixed so avoidWP:SNOW.Shakakarta (talk)08:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what do you mean Paranda is never mentioned. I think you should bother to open the sources I provided (Link is given). Care to explain more?
First, thanks for the contributions and effort expended. It might be advisable to add a "keep" !vote instead of just comments of support and advocacy. I love history but sometimes, if there is something worth keeping, it is better to cover such an event within another article. I just don't see aHEY.
The "Battle" section states, "The prince received the orders while on his way to Panhala". This is not only a new paragraph but a new section. Someone unfamiliar with the history would have to investigate (possibly stop reading) to see that Bakht (introduced simply as Bidar Bakht) is a general---and a prince. Dhanaji Jadhav seems to have dropped in by the first known use of a parachute. Turns out he is a general also. He went to "meet" the prince. It seems the meeting went badly because a "fierce battle" ensued. The same wording is used for both battles.
---And--- In the "Aftermath" section: "He led his remaining troops back to his territory. The prince attempted to chasehim but abandonedhim and returned to Aurangzeb, where he would rewardhim for his actions." While good practice in using a lot of pronouns, it can be hard to follow, trying to determine which "him" is being discussed. The last "him" is incredibly confusing.
Serious issues: Out of three sections, there are three sentences on "the second battle" which is the title of the article. 12,000 men marched against two armies with an untold number resulting in two "fierce battles", and the subject of the article gets three sentences? Inquiring minds would wonder how many men were in the two armies against Rajaram and far more details of the battle.
There is nothing that shows the subject battle to be any more notable than the "fierce battle" that occurred "in the region between Baramati and Shrigonda", or that the title actually fits the article.Note: The Fierce battle is covered inBidar Bakht#Defeat of Rajaram.WP:SIGCOV is a criteria of theGeneral notability guideline:A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability for astandalone article is the issue--Otr500 (talk)12:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to understand that it's not only about grammatical and chronological errors which the article seems to carry but mainly about the coverage of at least 2 pages, for only telling us the crux of the event (Battle section), which is evidently unfounded.Heraklios17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the thorough analysis done byOtr500: That we don't have words beyond "A fierce battle was fought", It evidently lacks the coverage which is obviously required for even a start class article.Heraklios16:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a dissertation submitted for a PhD. PerWP:SCHOLARSHIP, dissertations should only be used if they have been widely cited in scholarly literature. This has not been.
The source is another PhD dissertation, not widely cited in the literature, and thus not suitable to confer notability perWP:SCHOLARSHIP.
~ The source gives three sentences on the build-up, and one on the battle itself.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no significant coverage for the battle in the sources.
Surinder Singh Johar (2002) only provides a paragraph worth of coverage to the actual conflict. Same thing with Kharak Singh (1996), Harbans Singh (1994), G.S. Chhabra (1960) and Surjit Singh Gandhi (1999). The sources do not consider this conflict as a standalone event or even call it by the name it is created under, they discuss it in the broader context of conflict between Mughals and Sikhs. This topic therefore failsWP:N andWP:GNG. The relevant parts can be covered atNawab Kapur Singh.Koshuri(グ)15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with most creations by this editor, this article is taking an excerpt from a broader history and spinning it into a standalone article with no substance. It is also full of verifiability issues. The history of the Mughal-Sikh wars is long and complex, and warrants spinoff articles in some cases, but this isn't one such; all the information here that from good sources can be covered without difficulty in broader articles, such asNawab Kapur Singh andZakariya Khan.Vanamonde93 (talk)18:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I was the admin which declined the speedy, based on sources varying from the original process. I'm unimpressed with sources applied and my reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better on the web. Run-of-the-mill applies. Happy to see improvement, but now it's still an A7, so far as I can see.BusterD (talk)14:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
So the main concern is a lack ofWP:RS, which I disagree with. The magazine has been covered multiple times in big newspapers like theSacramento Bee andSacramento Business Journal, indicated by source 2 and source 7. It's also been covered by smaller papers like theElko Daily Free Press (source 14) andThe Placer Herald (source 12). But because this is Wikipage on a magazine, we should considerWP:NMEDIA for help determining notability. In the sub-section for "Newspapers, magazines and journals," Comstock's meets the first, second, third and fifth criteria. It has won awards (sources 26 and 27), it has a significant history (source 30), it is considered a reliable source as it's articles have been used as citations on about 30 different Wikipages, and it covers a non-trivial niche market, which is theSacramento metropolitan area (source 1). Comstock's is a member of theCalifornia News Publishers Association (source 4), which is criteria 4 ofWP:NEWSNOTE. While Comstock's isn't a newspaper, it's unique for a magazine to be a member of a state-wide journalism organization, so that point should count towards notability.Eric Schucht (talk)15:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm still struggling to find anything outside the Sacramento Business Journal, we have multiple articles from it. Some coverage in the Sacramento Bee and Fresno and Elko newspapers. I guess we have enough to confirm notability; very local/focused coverage, but it extends over many years and a semi-large geographic area.Oaktree b (talk)17:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very !weak keep, I could go either way. If we found better sources, could be a !keep, but I can't find any. Gnews goes for about 30 pages of articles from the magazine itself, then dies off.Oaktree b (talk)17:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The California Digital Newspapers collection links a number of stories from the RosevillePress-Tribune and other local papers. Thus far none of them seem massively important, but the number of mentions indicates a level of significance to the region. Many of the articles discussComstock's role as a sponsor of local awards. -Pete Forsyth (talk)19:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 2024 a feature radio interview with Comstock about the magazine's 35 year anniversary[23] , andBite Sized Finance podcast episode on same topic.
Sacramento Public Radio marked 20th anniversary with an interview (24 minutes in).
Keep. I see no evidence of lingering COI issues in the text. Key points such as circulation are sourced to several different independent sources, and a number of media organizations have covered anniversaries and the magazine's role in the community. Sourcing is good. I do think the article could benefit from some trimming, e.g. there is more attention given to the publisher's origin story, the vision that came to her in a dream, etc., than seems appropriate to a Wikipedia article. But that's not a matter for AfD. I see no issues that would warrant deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk)20:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in Sac Bee and Sac Business Journal, multiple items of coverage count as one source each... but that's still solidly two Independent RS'es.Jclemens (talk)23:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
FailsWP:NSONG, as only source that is about the song isthis rather short, routine "this video just came out" spot from Billboard. Should be redirected to its album.꧁Zanahary꧂01:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of keeping the page due to the song's history behind it. I do agree however that it is lacking specific sources. If that can be corrected the article deserves to stay.Azuzist (talk)05:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Could not find significant, reliable coverage of the song on its own. Most coverage seems to be about the event of the song's release/re-release to fix mumbling.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: PreviousWP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit14:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toDirectX#Components. Does not seem to be notable on its own, and is already mentioned on the main DirectX page
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Most of the sources are dedicated solely to the Webid company or are based on interviews and statements. There is no clear notability per Anybio and gng.Unicorbia (talk)14:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Does not appear to have valid secondary sourcing to proveWP:GNG. There's just a slight mention of him in the CBC article which is the only quality source I can consider. Source #4 is dead.m aMANÍ1990(talk |contribs)23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Eren Legend meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines due to his recognized impact in the bodybuilding community. He has been featured in reputable fitness magazines and websites, with coverage from independent sources discussing his achievements and training insights. His involvement in bodybuilding competitions and contributions to fitness culture further support his notability. Deleting the article would remove a relevant figure from the fitness community, and the existing sources substantiate his presence in the field. Therefore, I believe the article should be kept at least a Biography stubs.Lukadon (talk)03:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge - there was a review of the music video inPeople, but it doesn't appear to have charted. Ping me if you find anything else.Bearian (talk)22:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: ChannellingLiz here: mergeto where? I can't find any studio album where this song was included, and merging to the artist page seems inappropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Owen×☎13:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasdelete. This AfD was clearly a victim of canvassing, as evidenced by the many participants with little to no AfD experience relying on weak arguments, almost all on the Keep side. Weighing by strength of arguments, I see a consensus to delete the article. This consensus is further strengthened if I apply the standard set of restrictions perWP:CT/BLP and discard !votes from non-EC participants. Since the result of the previous AfD was Keep, I think it is premature to SALT the page, but any admin is welcome to apply a temp- or indef page protection to force the next incarnation to go through AfC.Owen×☎14:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: following arequest on my Talk page, I draftified the page so that interested editors may continue working on it. I also EC-protected the mainspace page for six months to prevent a hasty move back from draft.Owen×☎14:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete per nom. I note that Wikipedia does not have a standalone article about more notable Mukesh Ambani relative namedAnant Ambani. Having one about Akash Ambani is even more meaningless.Koshuri(グ)15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is the chairman ofJIO which is the largest mobile network operator in India and the third largest mobile network operator in the world with over 46.37 crore (463.78 million) subscribers. Has received lot of coverage due to the fact that he is Chairman ofJio and the claim for notability is based on this. particularly finance and business newspapers have covered him.He is inTime's 100 emerging leaders' list and the only Indian in the list.He also figures in Fortune's '40 Under 40' list of influential people.Added References clearly passesWP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)15:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][reply]
None of the sources provided by you are good enough for meeting GNG. Except the promotional article from SCMP, all of your sources are all fromWP:NEWSORGINDIA and have issues that are mentioned there. Most of them are promotional puff pieces, paid advertorials, press releases, and interviews.Koshuri(グ)18:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take an example:[30] is a piece with no byline that recycles content fromTime. It provides no significant coverage of Ambani and obviously does not count towards the GNG. That aside, it also shows several signs of being the kind of (possibly paid) promotional piece NEWSORGINDIA warns of. I'm not going to do this for all 25 links you've dumped, but from what I've seen I disagree that these sources demonstrate notability or that an RSN discussion is warranted here.Toadspike[Talk]23:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It will require at least 4 reliable sources, independent of the subject, that have given significant coverage. I see none right now.Abhishek0831996 (talk)10:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hindustan Times, Zee news and ABP news are reliable media outlets, citing the "Godi media" article, doesn't bypassWP:RSN[31], simply labeling these is just overlooking the thorough discussion. Additionally The Financial Times, South China Morning Post and Times, which were also cited in the article, are not even from India to begin with.AlvaKedak (talk)11:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally absurd! Godi media sources Hindustan Times, Zee news and ABP news are not reliable when it comes to notability. SeeWP:NEWSORGINDIA which was created years after the 2018 comment you are citing. SCMP article is a promotional piece, written similar to NDTV one, as has already been described below. Financial Times article is more aboutMukesh Ambani, not Akash. There is nothing called "Times" here.>>> Extorc.talk12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The arguments put forth in favor of deletion lack a solid basis and carry little weight. The article clearly cites enough sources, including over "4 reliable ones", passing the notability criteria.AlvaKedak (talk)15:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Hindu is clearlyWP:RS and is anewspaper of record as per thisRSN Discussion have added articles from the The Hindu which is reliable and not part of the Godi Media.It clearly stated that "There is a thorough consensus that The Hindu is a reliable source, and per the original question should be treated as a newspaper of record. ——Serial 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)"Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop copy pasting comments of others by ignoring the context.Serial has never posted on any AfDs of Akash Ambani and as much as I have seen him, I think he won't defend this promotional cruft.
My analysis of these sources of yours:
1)[32] is an article showing what the subject announced is irrelevant for indicating notability. 2)[33] is only about him becoming a chairman none of which makes him notable. 3)[34] is also his own announcement. 4)[35] is the same promotion which happened during June 2022 that has been already detailed here. 5)[36] reeks ofWP:NOTINHERITED. Entry of new board members is very common, and this coverage wouldn't have happened if actually notableNita Ambani was not involved. 6) and 7) You have provided thesame links twice. This link is rather showing the dominance of that Time magazine' list, not Akash Ambani. It hasn't provided significant coverage to Akash Ambani.Koshuri(グ)03:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just like I had said years ago and the article was maintained as a redirect toMukesh Ambani until 2 editors (now blocked socks[37][38]) restored the article, I would say it again:
SCMP link, the only non-WP:NEWSORGINDIA link is just likethis NDTV one. Same wording, same photos, appears to have been created with the same PR kit which they were provided with. Now these other sources likeFree Press Journal,GQ India,Times of India and others were published during 28-30 June, and they are just a re-write of each other. They even use same headings (personal life, education, etc.). There are also almost irrelevant sources likethis which also prove no notability. It makes no sense in saying that there was a quality in any of the cited sources. They arechurnalistic and promotional.
Time 100 next is not notable likeTime 100. A single paragraph as a part of their many yearly lists is irrelevant here. The same Time's 100 next 2022 list has dedicated a larger article for a number of other individuals likeFarwiza Farhan[39] yet we don't have an article about them.Koshuri(グ)03:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources provided by Pharaoh of the Wizards are not usable as they all have issues noted atWP:NEWSORGINDIA, Most of them only have generic bylines, have a promotional tone and are undisclosed press releases and advertorials, in short they are not independent of the subject.Ratnahastin (talk)05:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like in the past AfD, I still see that failure ofWP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME has been wholly ignored by those voting to keep the article, but it is not something that needs to be ignored at all. Reliance Jio (owned by his father) is still not anywhere in Fortune 500. The subject also failsWP:NOTINHERIT.>>> Extorc.talk06:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the essay suggest to bypass reliable independent sources? The company is significant enough to have its executive qualify for a standalone article. Moreover you are conflating "Fortune 500" with "Fortune 500 (US)". I can see that the essay's rule ofWP:NINI is being heavily cited, but it ceases when reliable sources actually write about the person. It actually says:"Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists,even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject."
You are misrepresenting the arguments of others and trying hard to look for loopholes.Reliance Jio is not listed on Fortune 500.[40] If you cannot find it there then don't talk about it.WP:NOTINHERIT does not "cease" merely because "reliable sources actually write about the person". ReadWP:GNG to understand why significant coverage matters, and stop misrepresenting the valid arguments from others.CharlesWain (talk)19:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, as I have already pointed out above,WP:NOTINHERIT no longer applies when the notability of the person in question exists. The essay addressed situations where having an article on a notable X figure does not mean any Y of his relatives or associates would bede facto eligible for an article. However, if notability of Y is backed by reliable sources, then Y qualifies for a standalone article.AlvaKedak (talk)19:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ButWP:NOTINHERIT says:Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they passWP:GNG. Akash Ambani probably would not be notable, if he had obscure parents. He got the job at Reliance Jio because of his dad.Michelle Obama got the job of1st Lady because she was married toBarry.WP:NOTINHERIT has a specific exclusion for people like Michelle. Akash Ambani is thought notable, partly because of his job at Reliance Jio, and partly because of his dad.If people can show enough (a) independent (b) reliable sources with (c) in-depth coverage of (d) Akash Ambani,WP:NOTINHERIT does not provide a reason to exclude those sources - provided they tick the box in allfour criteria. But an article that is mainly about the family and mentions Akash Ambani in passing will be excluded byWP:NOTINHERIT.-- Toddy1(talk)10:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability cannot be inherited. Being the chairman of Jio, does not make him notable. The subject of the article can perhaps be merged with an article on Jio, but it cannot be a standalone article. Barely any sources that fully cover the individual in depth. In my opinion itsWP:TOOSOONFlyingphoenixchips (talk)23:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would say the current sources seem non-independent and more like PR material. I’ve been watching the AfD since the beginning and would like to see a broader range of views. In the last AfD discussion, I pointed out that the sources were mostly from generic publishers without named authors. While the current articles do have named authors, they still aren’t significant or independent. The subject still fails to meet GNG, and Jio’s name alone does not make the topic notable. It fails INHERENT.GrabUp -Talk10:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, the previous AfD doesn't count at all. It was a withdrawal by the nominator, he simply closed it as "keep" before any discussion was even performed, it was his personal choice not a consensus, so you should not even count it. Lastly, the AfD before it ended in no consensus and after the subsequent discussion with source analysis it was kept a redirect until April 2025, so BLAR was totally an appropriate thing to do.Koshuri(グ)08:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The discussion is pretty old, which even predates the second nomination, thus it's irrelevant. Mostly Sources are independent, reliable and contains significant to medium coverage. The below analysis of sources may help.Heraklios14:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A whatabouttery argument, avoidWP:WHATABOUT. Not having an article on each time's entry is irrelevant. If you want to have an article on Farwiza Farhan then please start it. Again refrain from passing your poor observations: "owned by Godi media organisation ABP Group" means nothing unless you establish it atWP:RSN, say whatever you like but this is going to be a reliable source.Heraklios16:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article also contains coverage of his father, the father to son ratio is 30:70. Given 70% coverage on the person, it has some good volumes of coverage.
Only a paragraph about the person, seems mostly written for his father and sister.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}.
Debunking your wholly misleading analysis:
Godi media outletHindustan Times' article is rather showing the dominance of that non-notatble Time magazine' list, not Akash Ambani.
ThisFree Press Journal article like others from that time is a promotional article as already described by Charleswain that it was "published during 28-30 June, and they are just a re-write of each other".
Godi media outletNDTV's article is also going through the same issues as the above one.
ThisBusiness standard (Godi media outlet) article is also going through the same issues as the above.
ThisGqIndia article is also going through the same issues as already mentioned for Free Press Journal. It was also published on 29 June 2022.
ThisFinancialTimes Express source is also a promotional article published on 30 June 2022.
Why are you citing thisbook from 1963? Akash Ambani wasn't even born in that year!
There's not a single mention of Hindustan Times and The Times of India inGodi media. Your rationale of the promotional piece is totally spurious. We have no dealings as to how a reliable outlet may fall into promotional articles when they are reliable passes. All of the above sources passWP:NEWSORG (discounted TOI). Your personal assertions don't matter. Either go to RSN and start a RfC for each media outlet to re-evaluate the status of these sources or abide by the existing consensus.Heraklios16:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is being repetitive, why don't you take your concerns atWP:RSN? Start a RfC to Backlist or deprecate these sources, we're not discussing the reliability of these sources here. Usually one or two poor reporting instances don't get them deprecated. We haveAl Jazeera for example, see theRfC.Heraklios17:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDHT. If you don't have the will to start a discussion for sources you don't want to see, then you have to stop contesting their addition as well. I'll say again: a thorough RfC at RSN will help you rather than repeating the same "Godi media" and an essay which isWP:NEWSORGINDIA which no where says to completely avoid using the overlapped publishing outlet. TheWP:BURDEN to challenge these reliable sources is on you. This is no place to discuss or question the reliability of a source.Heraklios17:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reliance Jio is said to be the largest telecom in India, and it would seem the burden of proof in case of a close call should be on those seeking deletion. This article issooooooooooo shitty that I could see a case for TNT. I note that somebody popped on to Wikipediocracy attempting to campaign for Delete votes here and indicating there is a coordinated effort for deletion off-wiki. Closing administrator should not make the mistake of merely counting noses but should weigh the arguments and the evidence before rendering a verdict. —tim ///// Randy from Boise at WPO /////Carrite (talk)16:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: You have got it completely wrong. The person who posted on Wikipediocracy actually canvassed to keep this promotional page. Seethis comment fromSzmenderowiecki. After exposure, the canvassing userdeceptively changed his Wikipediocracy thread to support "delete". It was meaningless though because the article was already getting deleted. Thanks.Koshuri(グ)17:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectDeleteto Reliance Jio. There's nothing to write about this person apart from who his relative is and where he works. There's no article here. EDIT: Changing mine to delete taking into consideration the obvious AstroTurfing job going on with all the compromised references here.Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk)18:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Complete 25 english source analysis Including former 10[41]:
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}.
Given 4-5 sources are abundant in coverage and almost 10 sources have mid coverage, I don't find any reason for why this shouldn't be kept.Heraklios14:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HerakliosJulianus: The Money Control arficle is not independent at all. Read the disclaimer at the end of the article.Disclaimer: Moneycontrol is a part of the Network18 group. Network18 is controlled by Independent Media Trust, of which Reliance Industries is the sole beneficiaryGrabUp -Talk14:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources are not reliable as guided byWP:NEWSORGINDIA. Some of these are in fact owned by Mukesh Ambani himself. Those sources that are otherwise reliable have made brief coverage or just published the press release..THEZDRX(User) |(Contact)04:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reliance Industries, through its majority ownership ofNetwork18 Group, controls a significant portfolio of Indian news and media websites. Article from these sources are not at all independent from Akash, the sources includes, 1. Any News18 sites, 2. Firstpost.com, 3. CNBC18, 4. Moneycontrol.com, 5. Forbes India.GrabUp -Talk14:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia only requires two sources with two claims to passWP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards linked to a list of acceptable sources. Here are my two favorites -
It does not take much to passWP:GNG. Controlling a few hundred billion dollars usually attracts the media attention which meets Wikipedia's very low criteria. This person is the subject of media coverage specifically about them, so their notability is not affected byWP:NOTINHERITED rules. Bluerasberry(talk)15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: You are wrong with your analysis.. It is notTime 100.. It isTime 100 next which is not notable likeTime 100.. A single paragraph as a part of their many yearly lists is irrelevant here. The same Time's 100 next 2022 list has dedicated a larger article for a number of other individuals likeFarwiza Farhan[42] yet we don't have an article about them.
When Time lists about 1000 people a year in all the lists atTime_100#Other_Time_lists, then I think that mention counts as 1 source for each of them.
Business Standard is one of the most respected newspapers in India and in the world. There are only a few newspapers globally which have the infrastructure, staff, readership, and history which it does. Whatever flaws it has, is it not one of the most stable and trusted that India has to offer? There are no completely reliable sources, but having a very established newspaper in India make a report about one of the richest and most powerful people in the world is a routine and not surprising claim. It is not promotional; this man does not need this kind of promotion. It is just a statement of fact that he controls a country. I do not see propaganda, like a cover up of a scandal or promotion of some project here. Jio simply is big enough to control Indian government, media, and national life. Bluerasberry(talk)16:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list from Time magazine is not a notable one, that's why the single paragraph does not help in establishing GNG.
You are overestimating the credibility of Business Standard. It is just another lapdog media with poor credibility. The article you are citing is itself a puff piece with zero analysis.Ratnahastin (talk)22:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That person canvassed to keep the article, and later changed the thread. You need to get it right after reading the conversation right above.Ratnahastin (talk)22:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HT article is a promotional puff piece. BS article is just a copy of syndicated feed from PTI, which is not usable for establishing notability. FPJ article is a puff piece with generic byline, it is not usable perWP:NEWSORGINDIA. NDTV article suffers from the same issues as FPJ. The second BS article is also a promotional puff piece that is only covering a routine event, gqindia has already been addressed above. This is not including the fact that these sources are all part of partisan media that engages in peddling Pro-Hindutva/BJP news, which we all know is very close to the Reliance. It is clear that you don't understand how indian sources are gauged for reliability.Ratnahastin (talk)06:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I hear is "puff piece", "promotional" and "Godi media" in this discussion. It's totally incoherent and you want us to give nod to your unverified personal opinions:
thefact that these sources are all part of partisan media that engages in peddling Pro-Hindutva/BJP news, whichwe all know is very close to the Reliance.Shakakarta (talk)15:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The guy was in a totally low-key, barely-mentioned, decade-old car crash that just so happened to involve a massive cover-up. But by all means, if the majority wants a Wikipedia page for him, let’s make sure it’s a glowing tribute to his 'remarkable' accomplishments and his family's involvement in making mockery of Indian justice system. Sources to be referred:The Curious Incident Of Mukesh Ambani's Aston Martin In The Night-Time - Forbes,The Car Crash That Never Was - Newslaundry,The Knotty Issue of the Ambani Aston Martin - Open Magazine. Also, the sources discussed in this AfD highlight just how expertly the PR agency has been trained in navigating Wikipedia's rules and notability standards when it comes to reliable sources - it's an indirect hack job even making our tenured editors fall for it. It's rather appalling to see how the India's ultrawealthy have gone beyond Indian media sources, using their influence and money to infiltrate even reputable outlets like the SCMP. Regardless of how this discussion ends (which I clearly assume will be aDelete), it's clear we need to take a step back and critically re-evaluate the reliability of the media listed on RSP.Charlie (talk)23:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It's rather appalling to see how the India's ultrawealthy have gone beyond Indian media sources, using their influence and money to infiltrate even reputable outlets like the SCMP." - This is a bold claim @CharlieMehta, you need to back up the claim that SCMP's article is paid/promotion by the Ambani family. If it is your personal opinion, then that is alright but I would suggest striking it to avoid the discussion going off-track. Most sources given here barely mention his decade old car crash, please take the time to thoroughly read above conversation and review the sources that have been presented here.AlvaKedak (talk)11:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking for something that has been already addressed a few times above? I noted above that, "SCMP link, the only non-WP:NEWSORGINDIA link is just likethis NDTV one. Same wording, same photos, appears to have been created with the same PR kit which they were provided with." These articles were published during 28 June - 1 July 2022 as part of their paid campaign.CharlesWain (talk)12:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same wordings? Not really, both are pretty different from each other and there is nothing suspicious in using the same image. Even if the two articles are similar, how can you classify both of them as a part of a PR campaign? Your concerns are unfounded.AlvaKedak (talk)19:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's like asking for evidence if the sky is blue. It is your own problem that you don't want to admit how paid articles are published, and are instead trying hard to find loopholes just to save this article.CharlesWain (talk)08:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entirely failsWP:BASIC. I have agree that until now, nobody has mentioned even one source that isn't facing serious problems such as being a press release, paid content, and being too small in coverage.desmay (talk)14:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know as to which serious problem you want all of us to bear with? Other than RIL owned news outlets (News 18, Moneycontrol and CNBC) what objections you're raising are redundant and overly emphasized on promotional article issues (which if necessary needs a talk page discussion, subject expert or a peer review). We have not one, two but tons of sources with significant coverage.Heraklios15:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find any references where the source is independent from the subject and the coverage is significant. Please read the replies made to your several comments above by others. They are accurately describing the problem.desmay (talk)23:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concerns overWP:INHERITED still persists even after 3 years. Just like I had said in the last AfD,[43] there is literary nothing to write about this person other than mentioning his position of a chairman in his father's company. He is still far from having his own page.ArvindPalaskar (talk)03:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We know he's the son of a conglomerate but it is overshadowed when there notability exists. Gave up my 2 minutes just to see the previous nominations, those who argued with the sameWP:NOTINHERIT argument, were clarified with the exact samenotability outshines inheritance[44][45][46] replies, which I'd echo as well.Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk)05:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no evidence that "notability exists" with regards to this person at all. That's how your comment lacks any substance.Azuredivay (talk)06:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had also participated in the 2022 AfD and I see nothing has changed. All of the sources here are not independent, with many being owned by the subject's company itself.Paid news is pervasive in Indian media, given how the subject recieved a burst of coverage in a short period around mid 2022, there is little doubt that it was due to the PR efforts by Reliance. Every other form of coverage since then is routine and equally promotional.Azuredivay (talk)06:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this on WP:AN. The article is horribly written, and I cannot think of any source that is not promotional or paid. The reliable sources are certainly those that have neutrally reported about the subject, rather than dishonestly publishing puffery for which were paid for. The degradation of Indian media comes as no surprise.Delete is the only sensible option.103.129.140.161 (talk)09:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a GNG pass, per Pharoah of the Wizards. This article, putting matters politely, needs A LOT of work, but the subject meets our notability threshold and the corporation involved is gigantic.Carrite (talk)16:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to describe how it meets GNG. Just saying will not be working because it has already been described a few times, how all of the sources from Pharoah of the Wizards are insufficient.Ratnahastin (talk)23:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find it appropriate to go through the keeps, we need to move on and start building this article. I'm sure editors in favour of demeaning the reliable sources have many times used the same sources for their uses, a relevant example is from@Extorc: What's even more absurd is that they're ex-communicating Hindustan Times as 'Godi media' source while citing it --[47].Silent ink (talk)05:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using a source on an article for adding information is not the same as using the source for proving notability. You should better read the analysis of all those promotional andWP:NEWSORGINDIA sources instead of using absurdstrawman arguments to defend them.>>> Extorc.talk10:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're blatantly wrong, the burden is not on 'keeps', you have to establish that the reliable sources are no more usable.Heraklios17:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop misleading others. Burden is exactly on the "keep" votes since there exists no reliable sources good enough for meeting GNG..Koshuri(グ)05:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Pharaoh and Heraklios. I haven't seen any discussion onWP:RSN stating that these sources are promotional puff pieces or unreliable. Almost all of them offer good coverage. The claim that these sources are poor is simply false.Dympies (talk)18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention the sources you are talking about? There existsWP:NEWSORGINDIA because this is not the only subject where these sources have published promotional articles to promote the subject.Koshuri(グ)05:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consider salting perCharlie's suggestions, and also given that there have beenFOUR prior deletion discussions regarding this BLP since 2015. I would cautionUser:Koshuri_Sultan not to dismissTimes of India as not WP:RSbecause it is "known for publishing pro right-wing content". There isnothing inherently wrong with right-wing content. I am right-wing! Regardless, all of Koshuri Sultan's other points are entirely legitimate in making a case for deletion. PerToadspike too. Subject of BLP is the CEO of a large Indian company who has failed to distinguish himself sufficiently to attain WP:RS coverage in secondary and tertiary sources despite the passage of 10 years. I am reminded as well of WP:BOOMERANG (although rarely mentioned outside of an ANI context) bypast events described here. All attention is not good attention.--FeralOink (talk)04:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of eventual outcome, blank these older talk page comments: "I'm guessing there is either some anti-wealth or anti-this-family bias going on. Wikipedia has gotten more than a few hard-core anti-capitalists who don't think being a chairman of a major corporation implies notability",see here. TheUnexplained controversy section seems like bad faith accusation: "The tone of a number of the arguments being made for deletion seemed unusually bitter and acrimonious... it is very possible that there may be editors with a bias editing this page in the future. I think that extra vigilance may be required with this page and in AfD discussions."--FeralOink (talk)04:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view, the strongest argument for considering Akash Ambani notable is the extensive coverage he has received for the last decade in his role as co-owner (and part of the senior management group) of theMumbai Indians IPL team. Surprisingly, the existing stub does not make mention of this, nor has it been raised in this deletion discussion, though it was briefly noted (with citation) in15:06, 14 February 2021, one of the earliest extant versions of the article.
While Akash has been prominent as the face of MI's auction team at the yearly televised auctions since at least 2014 ("training ground before he takes up a bigger role at Reliance"), his role has progressed beyond this. To quotethis 2020 ESPNcricinfo article, "When the franchise heads into an auction, the scouts have review meetings ... chaired by Akash Ambani, 29, the son of Mukesh Ambani, the richest man in India and head of Reliance India Limited, which owns the Mumbai franchise. ... For the last two big auctions, in 2016 and 2018, Ambani directed strategy in coordination with the Mumbai coaching and scouting staff." Ideally this would be balanced against noting his involvement in MI's disappointing 2022–2024 auction cycle, as hinted at inthis 2023 ESPNcricinfo article: "Mumbai are in their galácticos era, signing the biggest names in the sport simply to prove that they can, just as Real Madrid did soon after the turn of the century. ... Somewhere along the way, they seem to have become a team driven by celebrity as much by success. Results, inevitably, have suffered." Indeed, Akash himself acknowledged the need for changeprior to the 2025 mega auction: "Of course, disappointed to lose so many ex-Mumbai Indians players ... The last three years, we’ve thought a lot about what’s the balance that we truly need to get back to winning ways, and for that you had to balance the emotional aspect of buying players and the skills required in this new T20 game."
Regarding the other topics raised in this deletion discussion, I acknowledge the difficulty of finding reliable, balanced coverage of the eldest scion of the Ambani family, given their central role in Indian society. Akash's father was described in a2020 Bloomberg Businessweek profile as "the richest person in Asia and, apart from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, probably India’s most powerful citizen", which also described the family conglomerate, Reliance Industries, as having "economic centrality ... difficult to overstate" and "as though Dow Chemical, AT&T, Exxon Mobil, and Amazon were a single conglomerate". I would view theJuly 2022 SCMP article as being a suitable independent source: while they do cite the company's press statement, as well as anonymously quoting a "senior Reliance official", the last three paragraphs clearly demonstrate they view Akash as notable because the third-generation family succession planning of Asia's largest company is notable, rather than being slavishly reliant on Reliance-provided press material.
Without prejudice as to the quality of the Indian new sources, I should also note that there appear to be at least two recent biographies of his father and grandfather, which (according to Google Books) appear to cover Akash at least in passing; it would be helpful if @ZDRX could clarify whether these were covered in his WP:BEFORE search.Preimage (talk)10:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Just reread this and realized it could be misinterpreted — to clarify, I haven't put in the time to look through these biographies in detail, so I'm asking whether they've been looked at already or whether we ought to spend more time discussing/reviewing these.)Preimage (talk)10:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are pages forMukesh Ambani andDhirubhai Ambani, but it is because they are notable. Akash Ambani is not. The 2022 SCMP news article is yet another promotional re-write as already detailed above in a few comments. You should really check the source assessment.THEZDRX(User) |(Contact)10:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Per analysis of sources from Charleswain and CharlieMehta. Fails bothWP:GNG andWP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. I should also note that repeated requests to provide multiple problem-freeWP:RS remain unfulfilled. Supporting salting so that repeated recreations without addition of non-promotional sources can be allowed once there are enough of them because right now there is nothing.Wareon (talk)11:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the question stands still. How did you decide that these reliable sources are promotional pieces in case of reporting Akash Ambani? On top of that, requesting for salting is just vague. I also wonder how you ended up on this AfD, straight after a week of inactivity[48].Shakakarta (talk)12:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all of the above,WP:NEWSORGINDIA is very clear, there are no sources covering the subject that are not problematic, sponsored or regurgitation of a press release, including the single South China Morning Post article. No objection to salting given the repeated recreation without providing any evidence of notability.Raymond3023 (talk)11:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline case. Thoughlots of news coverage mentions Akash Ambani, almost all of it consists of brief mentions in articles about something else.His wedding was a notable event (as were the weddings of his twin sister Isha and his younger brotherAnant). The other so-called "in depth" coverage of Akash Ambani is only "to some extent" in depth, and (as has been pointed out by Ratnahastin, GrabUp and others) is of questionable independence. There was in depth coverage in one source[49] of his being recognised in a cafe inHigh Wycombe. But it would be farcical to say that he is notable for two events: his wedding and the visit to a cafe in High Wycombe. So I thinkpeople notable for only one event may apply.-- Toddy1(talk)12:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that if this article were moved to draft, it could be expanded on, and the use of sources would demonstrate that he really is notable.-- Toddy1(talk)12:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tennis player never played an ATP Tour level, Grand Slam or Davis Cup match, there are no references on this article and when I searched I found only very brief, passing mentions usually in results lists and one story on the University of Bath website about his doubles partner which mentioned they played together but nothing substantial about him. I therefore believe this article fails GNG and SIGCOV guidelines and should be deleted. I would have Prodded it but a check of the edit history reveals it was Prodded in 2015 and deProdded using what I think are now defunct criteria.Anxioustoavoid (talk)12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Challenger doubles title is of a high enough level to meetWP:NTENNIS. My search for sources has found a small bio at[50], but his relatively common name is polluting my search results with entries about other people.Iffy★Chat --13:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing something (and I apologise if I am) but the link goes to a diary style article about an under 14s event that, yes mentions Mr Walsh, but is written by one of his fellow 14 year old teammates. Also having a common name does not give you a pass to say the article should exist. How about adding the word tennis to your search? I did so and, as I stated, discovered routine match results and the aforementioned university story about his doubles partner.Anxioustoavoid (talk)15:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That source I found has a few biographical details in the bottom right which si more than you get from a lot ofWP:ROUTINE coverage. I haven't !voted yet as you opened this AfD only a few hours ago and I want to spend more time looking for sources.Iffy★Chat --15:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nominator that there is a lack of significant coverage to establish notability as most mentions are brief. Note thatWP:NTENNIS is saying that people who reach achieve in one of the 5 categories listedare likely to have coverage that meets notability guidelines, not that the achievement itself indicates notability.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, as a comment, I'm not convinced winning a challenger tournament is a good indicator of whether significant, non-routine coverage would exist for a player.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage including the sources suggested in this discussion which are both sparse and primarily about the subject when he was a child. This bears out the fact that the subject achieved very little of note in his career and no matter of how much jumping through hoops trying to find a technicality to keep this article is done that fact won't change as he retired a number of years ago therefore isn't going to add to his achievements now. In summary non-notable and lacks the required coverage so should be deleted and yes I have searched for content but found nothing more than has already been outlined which is insufficient.Shrug02 (talk)21:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Other than the single short blurb in the source in the article, I cannot find any other in-depth information about this battle. Many mentions, most of which are mirrors of this Wiki article, but nothing in-depth. Contested redirect. FailsWP:GNG.Onel5969TT me12:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Passing mentions and nothing more than that, I had redirected previously but was reverted. Given its meagre notability, this is unsalvageable.Shakakarta (talk)15:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasdraftify. The sole 'Keep' here is a promise to improve the page - a promise that has yet to be fulfilled.Owen×☎14:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has just been created. Within the next couple of days, more details and sources will be added. It’s foolish to list it for deletion without giving it time to be completed.OCDD (talk)06:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:AGF relist to giveUser:OCDD more time to work on this, since I don't see a strong consensus for any one outcome yet. However, I will note that OCDD has only made[55] one edit to this page since their !vote. I strongly encourage them to make good on their promise to add more details and sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Toadspike[Talk]11:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: There will probably be better coverage once the season has started, but the article is currently lacking any sources with significant coverage about the subject - the sources present are primarily about the competition, with very little content about the teams involved.EdwardUK (talk)09:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge and Redirect toList of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters per BoomboxTestarossa. Searches using both the "Great and Powerful Trixie" and "Trixie Lulamoon" names are turning up nothing but trivial mentions in reliable sources, meaning the character fails theWP:GNG. But, as she is already included in the character list for the series, a Redirect would be an appropriateWP:ATD, and any missing information can be merged over to her entry there.Rorshacma (talk)15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing but mentions. No in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources, failsWP:GNG. Restoring the redirect as an ATD would probably be the best course.Onel5969TT me10:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toMegadeth. He is only ever mentioned as present in early histories of the band and received no media coverage of his own. He left the band (twice) long before they became notable without him, and if he inspired some lyrics that is merely fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)21:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge toJohn Messara. Apparently Arrowfield is a big operation and very well known in the industry, but everything is founded by John Messara and under the umbrella of "Arrowfield Group Limited" (ARF1), of which Messara is the chairman. There are a LOT of online articles mentioning Arrowfield Stud or -Group, mostly brief mentions as the breeder or owner of this or that horse, but Messara is the main star—searches for any of these names return many quotes by Messara from press inquiries and interviews. Messara seems well-known and well-reputed within the thoroughbred breeding and racing industries in Australia.Sample search results:
Arrowfield is also the sponsor of a race which has its own wiki-article:Arrowfield Stud Plate. "Arrowfield Stud"appears in 60 wiki articles, at least 18 of which wikilink directly toArrowfield Stud.I couldn't find any comprehensive coverage on the stud itself except for articles interviewing Messara (interviews rank as primary sources) but that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't find any. TheJohn Messara article isn't too long that it couldn't host "Arrowfield" content and redirect all the company names to it. All of the related articles (including the stallion articles) have been edited by likely-COI editors and probably need cleaning up, not deleting. ▶ I am Grorp ◀16:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article needs cleaned up and expanded with pertinent references. Just because they don't exist right now doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. If the trend is to start deleting articles just because they are stubs then the direction of notice should be for the project to consider improving it.Brudder Andrusha (talk)14:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe so, but no new refs have been added to this article since 2013 and there have been many edits since, including editors who have questioned its notability and referencing issues (see here and[56] edit summaries) Do we keep it for another 12 years in the hope someone eventually fixes it? It also appears that the most recent active contributors may have aWP:COI and currently the only working reference is the farm's own website. My concerns are not just about notability but also aboutWP:PROMO.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
After removing all the middle names and demoting the partial matches to See also, there are only two entries left, the surname being the obvious primary topic.Clarityfiend (talk)23:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article even started out that way:Special:Permalink/191574737. The other article began as a self-contradictory page about some claimed noble family:Special:Permalink/575056908. (It cannot have both originated in Normandy and in Scotland in two different centuries.) The content that was sent over there could be brought back here and this page be given its original purpose back.Uncle G (talk)05:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comment: To move a page onto an existing page, we'd either have toWP:SWAP the two (and presumably redirect the dab now at Purves) or we'd have to delete Purves and move the surname page onto it. One would preserve edit history, the other wouldn't.Toadspike[Talk]19:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There are no decent sources for this that I saw, certainly no reliable/acceptable ones, and none are included in the article, which is just a bunch of OR. Who knows what that book is, but "Flaming Arrow Press" is not much of a publisher.Drmies (talk)04:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least it didn't have scantily clad manga figures on the cover. But it was spiral bound and illustrated with a cartoon figure. ☺ Having researchedMeteor hammer (AfD discussion) and come across no juggling sources at all, I am forgoing doing the same research twice. Flaming Arrow Press was an imprint of Eric Bagai's Foreworks publishing in Portland in the 20th century according to publishing directories. Eric Bagai died in 2022, the Foreworks WWW site is a memorial to xem, and the erstwhile Foreworks book on backgammon is nowadays self-published by its author Jeremy Paul Bagai as Fortuitous Press.
The nail in the coffin for this article is that the "more good info" added by edits such asSpecial:Diff/637233083 comes not from the source cited, which is a sales catalogue entry and says no such thing at all, but word-for-word from what Wikipedia'smeteor hammer article said at the time:Special:Permalink/635843518.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep. PerWP:NEXIST, adequate sourcing has been identified in English. As an aside, since the Chinese sourcing being cited is dependent on machine translation, some caution may need to be used regarding those works and their reliability.Goldsztajn (talk)11:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no decent sources for this that I saw, certainly no reliable/acceptable ones, and none are included in the article, which is just a bunch of OR.Drmies (talk)04:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked under the purported Chinese name. The Chinese book of C# programming, using a martial arts computer game as an example, that turned up early in the results was not a source. But it was in amongst page after page of books with scantily clad manga figures on the covers that weredefinitely not sources. I don't know what you have stumbled upon,Drmies, but the books results tell me that it is fantasy and not reality. Yes, I bloody wellam judging said books by their covers.
Checking the article talk page I see that people have challenged this for being video game manual fantasy since 2006. Checking the edit history I see that it has been variously sourced to Everything2, and exemplifed by counterfactuals such as theKill Bill movie series and — Yes. —by anime. Thezh:流星錘] article has just two discoverable sources:ISBN7500060874 I have no access to, although from the citation in that article it seems that it is as suspect a source as the only source cited in this article back in its 2005 incarnation, andISBN9789866712210 is explicitly a book of fantasy weapons froma Taiwanese publisher of fantasy books.
So it looks like Wikipedia has been promoting fantasy as fact for 20 years, again.
To add to this: I checked out the images. One is a picture created by a user who appears to be as historical arms enthusiast. The others stem from Flickr, where a private collector named Gary Todd has uploaded images of his collection.
Considering that Todd apparently owns a whole pile of these weapons, you'd think we would have at least one image from a museum collection and/or verified by a historian.
This sourcehas been linked since the day the article was created in 2005. The article notes: "The meteor hammer is derived from a kind of hunting weapon of remote times. It consists of either a five-metre-long rope with one hammer at one end, or a two-metre-long rope with one hammer at each end. The hammer is made of bronze and is as big as a duck's egg. A skilful performer can have the rope wrap around his/her neck, chest and back, shoulder and elbow, wrist, legs, feet or waist before unwrapping it to release the hammer with a powerful jerk of the body. In this way, the hammer shoots forth quickly like a meteor, making a deadly impact on the target."
The book notes: "The meteor hammer was a type of soft weapon. From ancient times, people tied stones to rattans for hunting, which was an early form of the meteor hammer. The Legends, a collection of short stories, document that a Kunlun slave Mo Le killed vicious dogs with the meteor hammer for his master in the Tang dynasty. 122 Another similar type of these soft weapons in this period was the rope-dart, a sharp metal head tied to a rope."
The book notes: "The meteor hammer is composed of an iron hammer and a long rope. The iron hammers are usually in the shape of a ball, melon or a ball with sharp spikes, and weigh 1.5 to 2.5kg."
Chinese-language sources:
Chang, Zonglin 常宗林; Li, Xukui 李旭奎; Yang, Enhua 杨恩华; Wang, Xiyan 王锡艳; Yu, Jing 于静; Xu, Xu 许旭, eds. (2006).中国文化导读 [Aspect of Chinese Culture] (in Chinese). Beijing:Tsinghua University Press. p. 41.ISBN978-7-302-12632-4. Retrieved2025-04-13 – viaGoogle Books.
The abstract notes: "以史料为依据,对“流星锤”的起源及历史演变进行综合分析和探讨。并对流星锤在演练过程中所表 现出的动作的连贯性、缠身的巧妙性、打出的突发隐蔽性三个特点,圆周运动、直线运动和弧线运动三种运动 轨迹以及流星锤和绳标之间的区别加以论述。"
From Google Translate: "Based on historical data, this paper conducts a comprehensive analysis and discussion on the origin and historical evolution of "Meteor Hammer". It also discusses the three characteristics of the meteor hammer in the process of practice: the continuity of action, the cleverness of entanglement, and the suddenness and concealment of the attack, the three movement trajectories of circular motion, linear motion and arc motion, and the difference between the meteor hammer and the rope mark."
The abstract notes: "文章根据"流星锤"技术特点,基于"流星锤"的发展现状,对"流星锤"发展传播的策略进行了研究,尝试性地制定出合理可行的传播方案.本研究的目的在于避免濒危武术拳种的灭亡,将现代科学技术与传统武术有机结合,通过"流星锤"的个案研究为传统武术的发展提供借鉴,寻找出一条适合传统武术发展的道路,使传统武术在发展过程中突破陈规,与时俱进,提高传播效率,造福人类社会,增加科技含量,立足于世界体育之林."
From Google Translate: "Based on the technical characteristics of "Meteor Hammer" and the current development status of "Meteor Hammer", this paper studies the development and communication strategy of "Meteor Hammer" and tries to formulate a reasonable and feasible communication plan. The purpose of this study is to avoid the extinction of endangered martial arts, organically combine modern science and technology with traditional martial arts, and provide reference for the development of traditional martial arts through the case study of "Meteor Hammer", find a path suitable for the development of traditional martial arts, so that traditional martial arts can break through the old rules in the process of development, keep pace with the times, improve communication efficiency, benefit human society, increase scientific and technological content, and gain a foothold in the world of sports."
Ding, Sudong 丁苏东 (1999).""流星锤"的起源及历史演变" [The Origin and Evolvement of "Meteor Hammer"].体育学研究 [Journal of Sports Research] (in Chinese) (30).ISSN2096-5656. Archived fromthe original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved2025-04-13 – viaWanfang Data [zh].
The abstract notes: "以大量史料为依据,对"流星锤"的起源及历史演变进行综合分析和探讨."流星锤"起源于原始社会旧石器时代狩猎工具的"飞石索".在新石器时代中晚期,逐步用于练武活动和战争,而成为真正意义上的"流星锤".在明清武术鼎盛时期,"流星锤"的演练套路已趋成熟,并得到了极大的发展"
From Google Translate: "Based on a large amount of historical data, this paper conducts a comprehensive analysis and discussion on the origin and historical evolution of "Meteor Hammer". "Meteor Hammer" originated from the "flying stone rope" hunting tool of the Paleolithic Age in primitive society. In the middle and late Neolithic Age, it was gradually used for martial arts training and war, and became a "meteor hammer" in the true sense. During the heyday of martial arts in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the practice routines of "Meteor Hammer" had matured and had been greatly developed"
The abstract notes: "流星锤是我国古兵暗器之一,它历史悠久,源远流长.最早起源于原始社会狩猎工具的飞石索,经各朝代的演变逐渐形成了现代的流星锤.本文通过文献资料法、图像采集法、比较分析法等研究方法,对流星锤项目核心典型动作挂肘技术进行研究,系统地对流星锤挂肘动作进行分析、分类与分解,并制订出5种学习和提高挂肘动作的练习方法.通过对传统器械流星锤挂肘动作的技术分析,可以大幅度提高流星锤套路的整体质量、击打的准确度及为以后的教学与训练提供有利地参考,以期为流星锤今后更好地发展提供理论支持."
From Google Translate: "Meteor Hammer is one of the ancient hidden weapons in my country, and it has a long history. It originated from the flying stone rope of the hunting tool in primitive society, and gradually formed the modern meteor hammer through the evolution of various dynasties. This paper studies the elbow hanging technology of the core typical action of the meteor hammer project through the research methods of literature data method, image acquisition method, comparative analysis method, etc., and systematically analyzes the meteor hammer elbow hanging movement. Analyze, classify and decompose, and formulate 5 training methods for learning and improving the elbow hanging action. Through the technical analysis of the traditional weapon meteor hammer elbow hanging action, the overall quality of the meteor hammer routine and the accuracy of the strike can be greatly improved, and a favorable reference can be provided for future teaching and training, in order to provide theoretical support for the better development of the meteor hammer in the future."
Wang, Xiaowen 王晓雯; Liu, Qinghua 刘清华; Li, Yanjun 李艳君; Xu, Jialu 许嘉璐; Gu, Kaikai 谷凯凯; Xu, Zhaohui 徐朝晖 (2020)."传统武术软器械流星锤十字披红动作技术分析" [Technical Analysis of Traditional Martial Arts Soft Weapon: Meteor Hammer "Cross Red-Draping" Movement].武术研究 [Wushu Studies] (in Chinese) (5).doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-5643.2020.05.027.ISSN2096-1839. Archived fromthe original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved2025-04-13 – viaWanfang Data [zh].
The abstract notes: "流星锤起源于古代原始社会,旧石器时期狩猎工具的飞石索,到如今逐渐演变成为流星锤,是中华武术传统软器械之一.十字披红为流星锤套路当中上肢缠绕类的核心技法,其动作有较难的身体协调性和技巧性.通过文献资料法、图像采集法、技术分析法,对传统武术软器械流星锤十字披红的动作进行分析,提供训练方法.通过对传统武术软器械流星锤十字披红动作的技术分析,为习练者提供正确的技术动作,提高流星锤套路的质量和水平,提供有力的参考."
From Google Translate: "Meteor hammer originated in ancient primitive society. The flying stone rope used as hunting tools in the Paleolithic Age has gradually evolved into a meteor hammer, which is one of the traditional soft weapons of Chinese martial arts. The cross-shaped red is the core technique of the upper limb entanglement in the meteor hammer routine, and its movements have difficult body coordination and skills. Through the literature method, image acquisition method, and technical analysis method, the movement of the traditional martial arts soft weapon meteor hammer cross-shaped red is analyzed, and training methods are provided. Through the technical analysis of the traditional martial arts soft weapon meteor hammer cross-shaped red movement, the correct technical movements are provided for practitioners, the quality and level of the meteor hammer routine are improved, and a powerful reference is provided."
Adding that the other names listed in the article are probably 大锤, 飞锤, and 龙圈 in Chinese. I get results for the second term but not the third, which I suppose we should remove as original research. The first usually means "sledgehammer". Hopefully this helps with the search for sources.Toadspike[Talk]07:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasredirect toZambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics. is the consensus I see from the participants. I never want to discourage editors who are passionate about editing and a subject but it's unfortunate that we need to rehash old disputes years later. We need reliable sources to establish and verify notability.LizRead!Talk!04:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based onWP:NEXIST. I expanded the article with a few newWP:RS sources I found the day before it was nominated. Zambia is a notoriously difficult country to research, and there is broadly speaking a systemic bias against African countries and people that affects the level of coverage available to us. Subject was the top marathon runner from his country so coverage should exist inZambian newspaper sources from the era as soon as they are available to us. --Habst (talk)15:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perWP:BASIC. The article is already a stub anyway, and the subject performed at an international level (and top of his country) and covered in reliable sources. Although the coverage is not significant, pulled together, they demonstrate notability, and at the very least, passed our BASIC test. I do agree with Habst about getting sources for some African countries especially for the older generation whose achievements would have been covered in their local press but have not been digitized yet for the internet age, and only available in their local archives. I experienced a similar problem many years ago when researching a particular individual and had to make a personal visit to the local archive and the media house's archive. This is why I'm always more lenient when it concerns much older African figures because most of the local African coverage at the time have not been digitised yet. Some of these African media houses (especially older ones) are aware of this and are working to digitize them with the limited resources they have, but just not fast enough. I'm therefore more sympathetic to the older generation who contributed a lot but have not been recognised due to these technical issues. However, for younger African generation, I'm less lenient because they are part of the internet age and getting coverage shouldn't be difficult.Tamsier (talk)17:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toZambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics. It seems we are all agreed that there is insufficient sourcing to meet GNG/BASIC. Tamsier cites BASIC, but by saying the coverage is "not significant", it is evident that we do not, in fact, reach BASIC, which states it is met where the subjectreceived significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. What we have clearly falls short for several reasons. An IAR case is being made that sources may exist in undigitised newspaper archives. Setting aside that any such coverage may well be primary, and thus excluded from notability considerations, there is a question as to whether any credence be given to the possibility of such sourcing in establishing notability for article retention. I agree that non English sources, and African sources can be troublesome to locate, but the flaw in the IAR argument is this: if the sources are simply unavailable to any editor, then no editor can write this page. They cannot write it unless and until sources become available, and so we are in the same position as someone we think should be covered, but about whom no sources have yet been published. It does not improve the encyclopaedia to retain an unwritable sub-stub about someone who may or may not meet notability requirements. The Redirect ATD retains the page history, for whatever it's worth. Notability is not met, the artcle can't be written. Deletion is appropriate but a redirect ATD is a suitable alternative.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)19:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I wrote never mind meant. Individual sources on their own may not be significant for notability, but combined together passes BASIC. In fact, that's what BASIC is mostly about. I didn't realise I have to explain that. However, if my initial statement was not clear enough, my apologies. I hope it's clearer now.Tamsier (talk)20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an IAR case at all. Wikipedia P&G has always permitted articles to be kept so long as reliable sources indicate coverage existing. For example, it would always be permissible to keep if we had a source saying "He was covered in the 1 January 1900New York Times front page" even if we don't have access to that article. In this case, instead of our RS saying that explicitly, they say it implicitly, by virtue of communicating his achievements at the Olympics. It's up to us to decide whether or not that indication is sufficient – and by virtue of looking at the European athletes finishing around him likePat Hooper andCor Vriend, which both have lots of available coverage, we can determine that a similar amount exists for Halwand but the only difference is the availability.
One other note is that speaking of improving the encyclopedia, Wikipedians in Zambia would be the most likely ones to have access to be able to do that – and considering new Wikipedians in general are less likely to have accounts, it would be much easier for them to improve an existing article than to convert a redirect back to the article (interfaces like the app and mobile editor don't even allow you to do that). --Habst (talk)22:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this elsewhere. NEXIST does not give a pass to anyone just because there exists some unevidenced hypothetical that sources could exist.Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world. But they must exist or the subject is not notable. Every Wikipedia page requires secondary sourcing for notability precisely because it is those sources that allow the page to be written. Because of NEXIST, we have some additional subject specific guidelines that allow us to assess whether sources are likely to exist. In this case the SNG isWP:NATH. If a subject meets an SNG, it is usually kept, even if we don't have all the necessary sources, based on the likelihood that sources exist. But here, the subject does not meet NATH. So we don't have the sources, and we don't have the presumption that sources are likely to exist that comes from the SNG. Making a case to keep this anyway says we should ignore GNG/BASIC and we should ignore the consensus of NATH. That is aWP:IAR case. And it is one I reject, because I don't see how maintaining unwritable machine generated and semi-plagiaristic stubs is good for the encyclopaedia.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NEXIST does not give a pass to anyone just because there exists some unevidenced hypothetical that sources could exist. Absolutely agree. NEXIST has not been persuasive in these athlete AfDs.LibStar (talk)10:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with that 100%. I think there is some miscommunication here, because the key part is that this AfD is notunevidenced, the evidence of achievements already exists and is verifiable in reliable sources cited in the article. This principle applies to all types of articles regardless of whether or not an SNG also exists. (Also, the overarching trend over the last few years on Wikipedia is against all subject-specific notability guidelines like NATH andWP:NSPORT in general and towards the general guidelines.) The argument is one founded inWP:N, I think that "ignoring a rule" would apply more accurately to the approach of ignoringWP:NEXIST. --Habst (talk)12:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Zero sources containing more than a trivial mention have been identified, and anyway global consensus is that athlete articles arerequired to cite sources of IRS SIGCOV to remain standalone. The subject's "evidence of achievements" was also explicitly deprecated as a notability rationale by global consensus, so there isno basis for presuming SIGCOV exists beyond ILIKEIT IAR. NEXIST does not operate as a notability criterion, it clearly does not override therequirement repeated numerous times even within the same section that existence of SIGCOV sourcing must be evidenced, and it even states its worthlessness once notability has been challenged.JoelleJay (talk)20:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS2022 does no such thing and it is absurd that you keep spouting that misinformed nonsense. I can't comprehend how you even get that reading given that most of the AfDsyou personally have been involved in result in deletionspecifically based on failing the NSPORT amendments introduced by that RfC. The policy proposals that achieved global consensus required all athlete bios to cite a SIGCOV IRS source; removed simple participation-based criteria from the sport-specific subguidelines, including merely competing at the Olympics; and downgraded meeting said subguidelines from a theoretically-rebuttable presumption of GNG to a rebuttable presumption that further SIGCOV existsif the initial SIGCOV citation condition is met. NSPORT has always required its subjects to meet GNG, and required this to be demonstrated via citations "eventually". For around half of all SNGs, notability ultimately is established through some approximation of GNG,not by meeting a non-coverage-based criterion; this doesn't mean we are "moving away from" SNGs.Notability guidelines are not only invoked in the context of AfD, they are also supposed to guide editors on whichun-linked topics are likely to be worth spending time trying to create articles on, and they help NPP in quickly determining whether a validclaim to eligibility might exist that would help a new article avoid a CSD tag.JoelleJay (talk)01:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link the consensus that says"that athlete articles are required to cite sources of IRS SIGCOV to remain standalone"? I understand what you're saying about NSPORTS2022, but I don't see this on that decision or any other global consensus.
I am also curious then, what would be an example of a valid application of NEXIST"The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article does not indicate that a subject is not notable" on a sports biography? If you think that NEXIST andWP:N is never applicable to any sports biographies, then why not write that into the guideline? --Habst (talk)13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 5 had a substantial amount of support and participation, and there is a consensus to add an inclusion criterion for sports biographies requiring that they have at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject (which is slightly different from the original proposal 5).NEXIST is supposed to encourage AfD noms and !voters to conduct some form of BEFORE rather than simply going off the sources already cited in the article. That'sit. It's explicitly discouraged as a keep rationale once notability is challenged.JoelleJay (talk)14:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NEXIST is supposed to encourage AfD noms ... to conduct some form of BEFORE rather than simply going off the sources already cited in the article – JoelleJay, the nomination is "Declined prod. Sources 2-6 are all databases or results listing. The first book source is actually a small 1 line mention." Isn't thatsimply going off the sources already cited in the article?BeanieFan11 (talk)15:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A key difference between that and the original proposal 5 was to not mandate SIGCOV cited from the onset, only at some point. There's no contradiction using NEXIST to add those sources eventually if we have reliable indicators they exist. --Habst (talk)00:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reading of the consensus, as explained to you by me,Cbl62, Sirfurboy, and numerous others, and as should beblindingly clear from the outcomes of like 3 dozen AfDs you've personally participated in.We also donot have any reliable indicators that sources exist. The subject's Olympics appearance explicitly cannot be used as an indication of sourcing existing, and even if he met NOLY he would still be required to have a SIGCOV source cited in the article.Almost a year ago both Liz and BusterD explained to you the requirement for specific sources to be identified, not handwaved as "sources must exist", so I don't understand why you decided on this ridiculous NEXIST pivot after your other arguments crashed out.JoelleJay (talk)15:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Habst endlessly recycles the NEXIST argument, I'm yet to see an admin close an athlete AfD on the basis of that when no actual in-depth sources are identified.LibStar (talk)15:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toZambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics as analternative to deletion –WP:WHYN andWP:SPORTCRIT both respectively state that "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and that "All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. [...]" The sources provided in the article do not help in establishing notability since they're either a database or don't providesignificant coverage of the subject at hand. Searches performed on (but not limited to) Google ([57][58]) orNewspapers.com ([59][60]) didn't turn up any sources that would help establish notability. Even if we consider systemic bias, there still isn't coverage to satisfyWP:GNG.Aviationwikiflight (talk)12:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Olympia public arts installation with one source. Again, should be simply included on a list of public art installations in the city.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there a list this can be redirected to? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit03:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
FailsWP:NSONG; "Illustrate Magazine" piece (the only source cited of which this song is the subject) reads like AI or a child's writing and doesn't appear to be a significant outlet (empty About page); should be redirected to its album.꧁Zanahary꧂23:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 discuss the song in detail within articles. Meets WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material".Medxvo (talk)13:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the the result of the ongoingRfC discussion about NSONG and GNG, I believe this has received enough coverage to be significant. The stories behind the songs are being covered in reliable sources outside the specific context of album reviews[61].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep I agree with Another Believer that this article can be kept and expanded based on the French version. I don't have the cultural knowledge to fully understand whether this passes GNG/ANYBIO, but in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE I think this article can be improved from existing French sources rather than deleted at this time.
Keep – The subject meetsWP:ENT as a notable performer with coverage in local media and presence in French-language sources. Article can be improved by translating and expanding from the French Wikipedia. Enough basis to preserve and develop instead of delete.Pridemanty (talk)06:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Even the sources in this article point to probable notability, and the French language article has more. According to my recent research, French is the second-most common language in Madagascar.Bearian (talk)04:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I find no sources for this soccer player. What's in the article are primary only. Appears to still be in the minor leagues, so might not have attained enough notice for more media coverage.Oaktree b (talk)02:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The source is a dissertation submitted for a PhD. PerWP:SCHOLARSHIP, dissertations should only be used if they have been widely cited in scholarly literature. This has not been.
Comment: The California Digital Newspapers collection links a number of stories from the RosevillePress-Tribune and other local papers. Thus far none of them seem massively important, but the number of mentions indicates a level of significance to the region. Many of the articles discussComstock's role as a sponsor of local awards. -Pete Forsyth (talk)19:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]