Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Central Asia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Asia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Asia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Purge page cache


This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.

Asia

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Sources do not provide independent WP:SIGCOV. Unable to locate sources. Bgv. ( talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tbennert ( talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

M-T pronouns

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

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field —  Iadmc ♫ talk  10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.
    As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.
    Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.
    I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami ( talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.
    An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami ( talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)
    What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami ( talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete —  Iadmc ♫ talk  12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article—  Iadmc ♫ talk  12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss ( talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big " teach the controversy" energy.
    @ Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.
Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:
  1. "Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia" [1] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
  2. "Personal pronouns in Core Altaic" [2] by Juha Janhunen
Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. – Austronesier ( talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?
I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami ( talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles ( talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles ( talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles ( talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 ( talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod ( talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like " a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --— Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @ 223.123.5.217 ( talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. —  Saqib ( talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile ( talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? —  Saqib ( talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 ( talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahil Abbas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrawan Ghimire (2nd nomination)


  1. REDIRECT Target page name

Afghanistan

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven ( talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier ( talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG [3] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [4]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [5] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [6] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [7]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [8] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [9] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven ( talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

187.245.67.52 ( talk) 19:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply


New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short list created in 2013 that has no sources that mostly duplicates the info in the better quality List of mosques in Azerbaijan. As an WP:ATD, I'd also support a redirect to the Azerbaijan list. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Homenetmen

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

This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris; I don't know why it was undeleted. Since then (May 2020) there has been no improvement, and the article consists of unverified text/OR (which, surprisingly, spends very little time on the actual organization and fails to say much that indicates notability) and a long, long, and unencyclopedic collection of linkspam. Drmies ( talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and improve. Clarification is in order for the nomination statement above. Homenetmen was created in 2016 and was never deleted. The discussion from 2020 saw just 1 other editor vote on your original nom, which was in regards to a different article. It was your recommendation that Homenetmen be deleted as well, but the article was never officially deleted. Now, back to content, this is a pretty notable scouting organization with active chapters across the world. A simple google search yielded 419,000 results; WP:RS confirming WP:N is indeed there. There are several wiki articles which are integrated to this parent article like Homenetmen Beirut and Homenetmen Antelias, which makes the deletion of this parent article seem odd to me. With that being said, I do agree that a lot of work is needed to improve the article and remove 'spammy' content. With a bit of tough love, the article can be saved. Archives908 ( talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh ( talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

St. James Armenian Church

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

Unsourced article with no indication of notability. A BEFORE search finds nothing but run-of-the-mill local coverage of the church, and it's not a registered historic building. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep and improve- I think with a bit of time and dedication the article can be improved and expanded. A simple google search yielded 184,000 results. For an almost 100 year old church, they still seem to be quite active on their website and social platforms and they appear to engage with the wider community through planning various events. Archives908 ( talk) 13:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is about a "church located in Watertown, Massachusetts" but a search shows that there are churches of this name/denomination throughout the US. Were there an article on the denomination (with appropriate sources) this might stand, but I don't see anything that would make this one location on its own worthy of an article. Lamona ( talk) 22:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Azerbaijan

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short list created in 2013 that has no sources that mostly duplicates the info in the better quality List of mosques in Azerbaijan. As an WP:ATD, I'd also support a redirect to the Azerbaijan list. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Huseyn Mursalov

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

Soccerway stub with no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. My own searches yielded only Fanat and Sportnet, both of which are mere squad list mentions that do nothing to suggest that Mursalov is notable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Murad Gayali

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

Played in 5 matches about 6 years ago but hasn't been since. No sign of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best sources found were a goalscorer listing in Sportal, a transfer announcement based on a social media post in Offside Plus and a squad listing in Redaktor. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Aleksandr Anichenko

AfDs for this article:
Aleksandr Anichenko (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Elnur Aslanov

Elnur Aslanov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.
TheNuggeteer ( talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{ subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Bangladesh

Muhammad Abdul Malek

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Abdul Malek (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 14:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:
Salman Muqtadir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [10] and [11] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain ( talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 ( talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [12], [13], [14], and [15]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.
    See his marriage news from Prothom alo, Dhaka Tribune, The Business Standard.
    Older articles about him also show his prominence.
    See these article from Prothom Alo 1 2, Bangla Tribune, The Business Standard, Jagonews24
    Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 ( talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.-- DelwarHossain ( talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Brunei


Cambodia


China

HAHAHAHAHA (Chinese TV series)

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

TV series fails WP:GNG. GTrang ( talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

JungleTac

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

Sourced mainly to user-generated forums and the like, could not find reliable sources about them at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [16]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."

    2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"

      From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."

    3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖 系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"

      From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."

    4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards ( simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten

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

WP:BLP issues - there are too many dubious and poorly-sourced claims in this article for an article about a living person. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, China, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability. The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting [17])] as opposed to service at the national level. Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable. And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes. Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted? Oblivy ( talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time. They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies, Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace, his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews, the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion - which Pfetten chairs.
Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional. Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider "negative";
Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator. They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article. User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this. Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article. They have described themselves as "Apethope's archivist and historian", [18]. The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten, a user name which suggests an obvious COI. Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article. Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles. I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI. It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui/ User talk:GeorgeThuiller, to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon, [19]. After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links. Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work "for" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work "with" it, [20]. Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.
SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections. See, as one example, these edits, [21] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.
In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs. I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware. KJP1 ( talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO). OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing). In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.
I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article. AfD is not for conduct issues either. Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI. Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says "discouraged" and "should" regarding COI, disclosure is "must" for paid editing). Oblivy ( talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this. I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence. My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects. For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers. KJP1 ( talk) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books. I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability. I am skeptical of GNG. His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That may well be a way forward. I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING. It's a Grade I listed building, has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media. I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute. KJP1 ( talk) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources

    1. Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01). "Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire]. Les Echos (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies."

      From Google Translate: "At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations."

    2. Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22). Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.). ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事"讲座成功举办" ["Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story" Lecture Successfully Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"

      From Google Translate: "According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China."

    3. Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13). "Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company."

    4. Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29). "Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself "The Red Baron". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service."

    5. Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14). "'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."

    6. "Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions'". China Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2023-03-07. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. "This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC. But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work," said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain."

    7. Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30). "'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner'". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. "BLP Issues" does not represent such a rationale.
Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC. On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated). Once the additional sources identified by @ Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.
@ KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page. However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments. Oblivy ( talk) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wang Toghtua Bukha

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

Contested prod. Uncited. Celia Homeford ( talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, China, and Korea. Celia Homeford ( talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redirect per Cocobb8. Cannot find any sources on GBooks, Google (except for WP mirror content), Archive.org, or anywhere else that turns up any result at all for any of the romanization options given or Hangul/Hanja script provided. I doubt it's a WP:HOAX, but I think we can safely delete redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found 20 years since this article was created. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. I removed the PROD after finding plenty of sources on this individual especially in Korean. This is most likely due to the various different spellings of his name. Here in this Korean translation of the Goryeosa [1] published by the National Institute of Korean History he is listed as both "독타불화" and "톡타부카". Individual has Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article [2] as well as a Doosan Encyclopedia article [3] both listed as "왕독타불화". He also appears in Empire's Twilight: Northeast Asia under the Mongols by David M. Robinson as "Toqto'a-Buqa" as well as in Korea and the Fall of the Mongol Empire also by Robinson. ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above evidence. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 08:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The sources found by CountHacker are mostly simple passing mentions and do not help in establishing WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Changing vote: Redirect to Wang_Ko#Family as a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Cocobb8, there are two Korean-language encyclopedia articles on this individual. That is not a passing mention. Not only that, he held the the office of Prince/King of Sim/Shen (various ways to translate it), which was a major office in Goryeo-Yuan politics, and had authority over the Koreans who lived in the Yuan-controlled Liaodong area. There were various attempts to place Wang Toqto'a-Buqa on the throne of Goryeo, he wasn't just a random noble prince, but an influential prince with power and influence, who nearly became king in at least two attempts. ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ CountHacker, encyclopedic articles are tertiary sources, so they cannot be used demonstrate notability, as GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, kinds and princes are not inherently notable and must demonstrate their own notability per WP:NBIO. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.

    The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which reflects this already. Cunard ( talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per sources presented above. Other encyclopedias having an entry is a good sign we should as well. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this and the other lists below do not meet WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 2 of 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 3 of 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 4 of 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The reasons why the article is put on the wiki main space include:
1. Lists are a kind of wiki articles in Wikipedia;
2. Similar articles such as List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 have been on the main space for ages.
3. Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 etc. are sorted in YES order for easy lookup and include stroke orders information.
By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention.
Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oops
Comment you seem to have bundled different-style articles that go with List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4. The stroke-order one is the only one I would consider deleting. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Walsh90210, Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) indicates that they are all related—perhaps they are not, I don't know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh no wait, you're right. This is rather embarassing. EDIT: or maybe not, I'm deeply confused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The article links were wrong. Stroke_orders_of_CJK_Unified_Ideographs_in_YES_order,_part_3_of_4 is part of the set recently created by a single author. You tagged List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ahhhh. I see. What's best to do now—transfer the AfD tags to the stroke order lists Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Hopefully, everything is fixed now Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks correct; you might want to bundle Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) as well. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan. Saqib ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N. The remover Saqib WP:POINT, did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates WP:FAITH. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. —  Saqib ( talk) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • User:Saqib: the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention ( WP:N). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians. WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
        • As far as Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
          • TinaLees-Jones, Notability is not temporary and WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. —  Saqib ( talk) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? —  Saqib ( talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Saqib. - Amigao ( talk) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Georgia

Tbilisi Waldorf School

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

The sourcing currently does not meet WP:NCORP. There may be other sources in Georgian, which I can’t read. Notability seems very uncertain and we’re long past the 90 day limit for draftification. Mccapra ( talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletion


Hong Kong related deletions

JungleTac

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

Sourced mainly to user-generated forums and the like, could not find reliable sources about them at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

India

Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India


Indonesia

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a news story, no significant coverage beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Erddy Titaley

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

This is a poorly sourced BLP and I can't find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The best that I could find were squad listings in Bola and Indosport. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram ( talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram ( talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi ( Read! Talk!) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 ( talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram ( talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb ( talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: „Mijn leven in Indië", door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school.. "Haagsche courant". 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb ( talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
  • Axad12 ( talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 ( talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke ( talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Erigo

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

The company lacks sufficient reliable sources; not notable organization Jibbrr tybr ( talk) 15:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

delete: not notable, delete per WP:SIGCOV (nothing official pops up on google for the first few pages) Noelle!!! ( summon a demon or read smth) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources about this company. ‍ Rela tivity ⚡️ 18:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  DDG 9912   13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Archi & Meidy

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

Did not find any sources behind this series to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge/Redirect to Yohanes Surya. Traumnovelle ( talk) 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Indonesia Proposed deletions


Japan

Hirofumi Torii

AfDs for this article:
Hirofumi Torii (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD featured only a bevy of personal insults and zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply




Scan for Korea-related AfDs

Korea

Wang Toghtua Bukha

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

Contested prod. Uncited. Celia Homeford ( talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, China, and Korea. Celia Homeford ( talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redirect per Cocobb8. Cannot find any sources on GBooks, Google (except for WP mirror content), Archive.org, or anywhere else that turns up any result at all for any of the romanization options given or Hangul/Hanja script provided. I doubt it's a WP:HOAX, but I think we can safely delete redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found 20 years since this article was created. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. I removed the PROD after finding plenty of sources on this individual especially in Korean. This is most likely due to the various different spellings of his name. Here in this Korean translation of the Goryeosa [1] published by the National Institute of Korean History he is listed as both "독타불화" and "톡타부카". Individual has Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article [2] as well as a Doosan Encyclopedia article [3] both listed as "왕독타불화". He also appears in Empire's Twilight: Northeast Asia under the Mongols by David M. Robinson as "Toqto'a-Buqa" as well as in Korea and the Fall of the Mongol Empire also by Robinson. ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above evidence. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 08:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The sources found by CountHacker are mostly simple passing mentions and do not help in establishing WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Changing vote: Redirect to Wang_Ko#Family as a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Cocobb8, there are two Korean-language encyclopedia articles on this individual. That is not a passing mention. Not only that, he held the the office of Prince/King of Sim/Shen (various ways to translate it), which was a major office in Goryeo-Yuan politics, and had authority over the Koreans who lived in the Yuan-controlled Liaodong area. There were various attempts to place Wang Toqto'a-Buqa on the throne of Goryeo, he wasn't just a random noble prince, but an influential prince with power and influence, who nearly became king in at least two attempts. ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ CountHacker, encyclopedic articles are tertiary sources, so they cannot be used demonstrate notability, as GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, kinds and princes are not inherently notable and must demonstrate their own notability per WP:NBIO. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.

    The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which reflects this already. Cunard ( talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per sources presented above. Other encyclopedias having an entry is a good sign we should as well. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply



Laos


Malaysia

Dana KCM

AfDs for this article:
Dana KCM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Charitable foundation that doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Created 10 years ago by an account that did nothing else on Wikipedia, no content edits or inbound links have been made since. The references are two old, deleted newspaper articles simply repeating the foundation's press release. It really doesn't seem like the sort of coverage we'd need to write a decent article on this subject. Searching for other sources I just get social media hits suggesting this foundation might not have been active past 2015. Here2rewrite ( talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

There used to be one book reference, but I just deleted it because it didn't actually say what the article said that it did (it was just the authors of a study thanking the foundation for a grant in 1 sentence, and non-significant) Mrfoogles ( talk) 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Proposed deletions


Mongolia


Nepal

Nepal Proposed deletions

Deletion review

Pakistan

Shafkat Saeed

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. And the third source is just routine coverage. LibStar ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mayor of Benazirabad

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

Fails GNG - non-notable office Saqib ( talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTCRIT - we don't need list of red links.. Saqib ( talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shafqat Baloch

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

The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed ( talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates ( Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial [AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial [AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. -- Imperial [AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:
There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.
How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 ( talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial [AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.
Regards Rawn3012 ( talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Operation Kahuta

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

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed ( talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed ( talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed ( talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [27] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sanghar camel amputation incident

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

It was a sad incident but WP is a not a newspaper. Clearly fails NEVENT! Saqib ( talk I contribs) 06:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sardar Khan Niazi

AfDs for this article:
Sardar Khan Niazi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The BLP clearly falls short of meeting the GNG as well NJOURNALIST - It was previously nominated for deletion back in 2017, but it survived due to insufficient participation. The only participant who voted to keep it was a sock account who provided no strong sourcing based on GNG. The sockpuppet also claimed that the subject had received one award. However, per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Saqib ( talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

In the last nomination, @ Lourdes: shared a good rationale to keep this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 ( talk) 22:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Sachi Baat SK Niazi k Sath should be a redirect to this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 ( talk) 22:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
IP - I guess I pointed out that per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Similarly, positions such as "Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station" do not inherently establish WP:N or automatically justify a WP BLP. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ahsan Boxer

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

IMO, the subject fails to meet the GNG. This BLP is relying on unreliable sources and I haven't found much in RS either about this subject that could help establish GNG. The BLP primarily focuses on the subject's 2013 arrest but WP:NOTNEWS. Saqib ( talk) 10:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The creator of this BLP ProudRafidi also seems to have COI. —  Saqib ( talk) 10:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Syed Ibne Abbas

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

Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject is non-notable diplomat as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. ROTM coverage like this is not considered towards establishing GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 16:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The anon IP says "Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable." Absolutely false. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This one fails to get third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich ( talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili ( talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
    • Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
    • Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
    • The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    • Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
    • The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich ( talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan. Saqib ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N. The remover Saqib WP:POINT, did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates WP:FAITH. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. —  Saqib ( talk) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • User:Saqib: the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention ( WP:N). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians. WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
        • As far as Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
          • TinaLees-Jones, Notability is not temporary and WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. —  Saqib ( talk) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? —  Saqib ( talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Saqib. - Amigao ( talk) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NEVENT. No lasting effects. Saqib ( talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS, but WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable, and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent. AddWitty NameHere 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
AddWittyNameHere, Noted. How about WP:TOOSOON ? —  Saqib ( talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles) PARAKANYAA ( talk) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
PARAKANYAA, Sure - I'm fine with merge into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as the event has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in international media: 9 June 2024, 11 June 2024, 16 June 2024. Maybe rename the article, but such events are almost always notable due to Pakistan Army connection. I'd suggest to defer this AFD for a year so we can see the lasting impact. 103.12.120.46 ( talk) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • IP- As per this report, Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge as per above. The event does not seem to be too outstanding from other terrorist activities in Pakistan to merit its own article. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven ( talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier ( talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG [34] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [35]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [36] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [37] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [38]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [39] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [40] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven ( talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Murree rebellion of 1857

Murree rebellion of 1857 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison ( talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr ( talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus ( talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Anantnag encounter

2023 Anantnag encounter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion. RangersRus ( talk) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations? Mdann52 ( talk) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: as per Hawkeye7, also article need to clean up! Thank you. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as per the several opinions above. Hyperbolick ( talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep: The subjects seems to have widespread coverage which makes it notable, maybe it needs to be improved but not deleted EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shivaharkaray

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

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON—it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! Jovian Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Saqib: This from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. Jovian Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Jovian Eclipse, But there are Indian RS confirming the existence of three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan, which includes Shivaharkaray such as The New Indian Express, The Economic Times. Plus, there are books that mention it too. You can just do a quick search on Google Books to check it out. —  Saqib ( talk) 07:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: This is supposed to be a very well-regarded shrine for Pakistani Hindus, for at least a century just as the other Shakti Peethas are. Every source you listed has come into existence after the aforementioned edit on 18 June 2021, which makes it blatantly clear that their reference was nothing other than Wikipedia (the ET article even explicitly says so). The books are all self-published ebooks, not academic works from well-reputed presses. The NIE article refers to a place called Karavipur where the temple is located, and it is again supposed to be near a railway station named Parkai. A quick 5-minute online research will reveal that none of those two exist anywhere in Pakistan. Also note that every "source" is either about the Shakti Peethas in general or about Hinglaj, but none about this temple itself. That also makes it fail WP:N. Jovian Eclipse 09:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Pakistan Falah Party

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

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore ( talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., -- Soman ( talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. —  Saqib ( talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
        • The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. -- Soman ( talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
          • Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. —  Saqib ( talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Opay

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC). reply
Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. —  Saqib ( talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

::@ Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding. 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
48JCL, What made you say this? —  Saqib ( talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Courtesy ping to @ CNMall41, @ Saqib, @ Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggested Parwiz ahmadi ( talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Created with templates {{ ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
https://www.cbn.gov.ng/supervision/fi.asp?name=OPAY%20DIGITAL%20SERVICES%20LIMITED%20(FORMERLY%20PAYCOM%20NIGERIA%20LIMITED)&institutetype=Mobile%20Money%20Operator Yes Talks about Opay and it's former name Yes Official publication of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Yes It values the companies existence in Nigeria. Yes Because it isn't from the company, it is therefore a secondary source.
https://www.theafricareport.com/346765/nigeria-opay-palmpay-face-scrutiny-amid-rising-appeal/ Yes Listing Opay among other fintech in Nigeria and a problem Yes Per RS. Yes Fintechs in Nigeria received a significant report based on the scrutiny. Yes Wasn't biased from a routine view. A news report. https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/
https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/ Yes Reporting a press conference of Opay Yes Punch news is reliable per WP:NGRS. Yes A press reportage. – Much more of a primary coverage since it was a press conference or thereso. —
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/olu-akanmu-steps-down-as-president-of-opay/ Yes Only about Opay and the CEO's withdrawal Yes Per WP:NGRS Yes Received massive reportage of a stepping CEO means the company is notable. Yes A secondary news report
https://thenationonlineng.net/fact-check-video-of-opay-agents-protest-in-ikeja-falsely-shared-as-recent/ Yes A problem with the company's service Yes The Nation is reliable Yes Such rallies dress the media attention. Yes A secondary report. Why will a company drags it's name down.
https://dailypost.ng/2023/04/08/kano-court-sentences-opay-agent-to-nine-months-in-jail-for-stealing/ Yes Problem again. Yes Per WP:NGRS. Yes Man's court case over Opay Yes A court case and arrest of an Opay agent is a secondary report
https://www.thecable.ng/opay-partners-verve-to-roll-out-opay-instant-debit-card-get-yours-anytime-anywhere-instantly/ Yes Only about the subject Yes Ditto Yes Partnership to such a firm is usually taken to the media in Nigeria as it benefits the mass. Yes A secondary report thigh we can't tell if the report was called. I wonder term this primary because it came from a secondary source.
https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2022/04/14/opay-obtains-approval-of-cbe-to-issue-prepaid-cards/ Yes Ditto Yes Daily News Egypt is a newspaper with editorial policy. Yes Approval by the nations bank is a significant coverage Yes From a secondary source.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/africa-focused-payment-firm-opay-040352184.html Yes Ditto – I don't know about Yahoo finance but it's mostly reliable – – —
https://leadership.ng/opay-wins-in-fintech-category-at-nitdas-digital-nigeria-2023-awards/ Yes An award ceremony Yes Per NGRS Yes Award ceremony are often significant especially when it's from NITDA Yes From a non primary coverage
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/opay-wins-advan-consumer-choice-award-for-best-fintech-2023/ Yes Ditto Yes Ditto – An ward ceremony that covers only one company is likely questionable. Yes From a secondary source. —
https://punchng.com/opay-gets-wef-recognition-on-financial-inclusion/ Yes Yes Per NGRS Yes Received SIGCOV from an international organisation. Yes From a secondary source.
https://leadership.ng/opay-earns-cnbc-and-statista-global-ranking-in-digital-payment-category/ About a championship award won by Opay Yes Ditto Yes Why not Yes Non primary coverage.

Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. The fact is that other website you cited are blogs. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That was an error. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:
  • This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
  • This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
  • This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
  • This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing ++ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You can't spin PR or company-generated information into notability - that's a pretty basic foundation of our guidelines. Nor can you t rely on an article that discusses the app to establish the notability of the company - another fairly basic part of our guidelines - see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. You've also missed some pertinent points relating to the OUTCOME essay you linked to - first, its an essay and not one of our guidelines, second it speaks in generalities and not specifics. For specifics, you need to look at NCORP *guidelines* - the basis upon which notability is established - which I've linked to in the analysis of sources above.
You pointed to some other sources. In summary, none of those meet NCORP guidelines for establishing the notability of the company either. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines as you have repeated the same misunderstanding. For example, this article in Nairametrics] is written by a tech contributor about the app, not the company. The start of paragraph 3 contains one sentence about the company but has zero in-depth information about the company and a single sentence is not sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH criteria. The next reference entitled "The Digital Silk Road" is available through the WP library and is 10 pages. The topic company gets a single one-line mention on page 4. That is insufficient and this reference also fails CORPDEPTH. For your other two links, please see WP:GHITS but in summary, we require specific sources, the volume of "hits" is not one of the criteria. HighKing ++ 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you perhaps tell me why OPay is non-notable. Aside from the news sources that you have discredited for reasons best known to you, can you give me a rundown on the following sources?
Adinlewa, Toyin (2022). "Effectiveness of Opay ORide outdoor advertisements on market expansion in Akure metropolis". African Social Science and Humanities Journal. 3 (2). ISSN  2709-1317 – via AJOL.
Ogiriki, T.; Atagboro, E. (2022). "EMERGENCE OF FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY AND MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA". BW Academic Journal. 1 (1).
Nezhad, Mahshid Mehr; Hao, Feng (2021). OPay: an Orientation-based Contactless Payment Solution Against Passive Attacks. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '21). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 375–384.
Omotayo, Funmilola O.; Tony-Olorondu, Josephine N. (31 August 2023). "Promoting Cashless Economy: The Use of Online Electricity Payment Channels in the Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective – via Sage Journals.
Southwood, Russell (2022). "Mobile money: From transferring cash by SMS to a digital payments ecosystem (2000–20)". Africa 2.0. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
I can go on for some time but I want to sternly believe that you have understood the point I am trying to make. Best, Reading Beans 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Please, just so that we're not at cross purposes and to facilitate reviews of sources, when you're posting links, please indicate whereabouts in the sources you believe the content meets GNG/NCORP (i.e. in-depth "Independent Content", etc) - at least then we'll know you've actually read them yourself. As to the links you've provided:
  • this analysis of the effectiveness of outdoor advertising just happened to use the topic company's billboard ad (could have been any company's billboard ad), but has zero in-depth information about the *company* and fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This research paper asks merchants questions about which payment system they use but only has 4 sentences describing the *company*. It refers to "(Lionel & Samuel, 2020)" as a source but the referred paper (available here) makes no mention of the topic company. Also, for me, the paragraph smacks of puffery/marketing but leaving that aside. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Your inclusion of this source is evidence that you didn't read it because it has nothing to do with the topic company.
  • This research report mentions the topic company twice in relation to popularity in paying electricity bills. In passing. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Finally, Russell Southwood's book (available at jstor) also mentions the company in passing, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH.
I've responded to your comments about the relationship between GNG and NCORP below. HighKing ++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Reponse Thankfully, the AfD isn't decided by a count of !votes, but by the application of our guidelines. In this case, I've pointed out how each and every reference fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The editors who !voted to Keep don't appear to grasp the fact that the guidelines for establishing notability of a company require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company*. HighKing ++ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [ source1] [ source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Hi Vanderwaalforces, no doubt the company exists but neither of those sources meets GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Nairametrics article discusses the app, not the company and fails CORPDEPTH (I discuss this above) and the Businessday article appears to rely entirely on an interview with Folorunsho Aliu, group managing director of Telnet, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing ++ 15:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • All I see from your statement is a confusion. There is no point debating. If the app was discussed, theirs no need differentiating it from the company. It is part of the company. This is not like a father and son scenario. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not trying to save this article that was why I haven't involve myself lately even though I created it. But I look forward to valuable reasons. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No, that's wrong. If the app is notable, then we'd have an article about the app (also meeting GNG/NCORP guidelines). This article topic is the company. WP:NCORP applies to articles on companies, but you should be aware that those same guidelines apply also to articles on products. When you are reading the guidelines, you should be aware of this fact, otherwise you might incorrectly make assumptions about product notability and company notability. In a nutshell, notability of a company does not bestow notability to their products/services and vice versa. A review of a product does not assist in determining notability of a company. HighKing ++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ HighKing, I disagree with this submission. NCORP and other guidelines are not above GNG; they are a branch of GNG if I’m not mistaken. I see a lot of misunderstanding here. If an entry meets GNG, I don’t think it would need to meet a different criteria for “product” or “company” to be considered notable. Best, Reading Beans 03:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • We've seen this argument plenty of times before - I suppose when all else fails, attack NCORP guidelines. First, both GNG and NCORP are guidelines and nobody is placing one "above" the other, however that might be done. GNG are general guidelines which apply (in general) to all topics. Some areas need additional explanations/examples and elaborations and therefore the GNG is augmented/supplemented/explained for those topic areas in other guidelines. For companies/organizations, we use NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You seem to misunderstand WP:NCORP. Are those sources not part of being significantly covered or are you cleared on the deletion of this article? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think I misunderstand NCORP at all, I think you do. The app is not the topic of this article, therefore those sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic. In plain English, you cannot use product reviews to establish notability of the company and vice versa. HighKing ++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ HighKing, are you suggesting the app is notable and the company is not? If so, it needs a rewrite. Best, Reading Beans 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No, please don't misread what I've said. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot be used to establish notability of the other. Nothing more, nothing less. HighKing ++ 19:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Despite edit count, you are a relatively new user. I would recommend going through company deletion discussions and talk page discussions of NCORP before making such a suggestion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 00:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As editors have given counterposed readings of the quality of the sources cited, additional editors' impressions of the assembled bibliography would be highly beneficial to determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fashion Central

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

This is clearly PROMO, created by a now blocked sock puppet. It hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage. Furthermore, it is not even a magazine as the article claims, but rather a boutique or maybe some e-commerce store. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I originally closed this discussion as a Soft Deletion, not knowing until I saw the deleted page that an earlier version on this article had been deleted as a PROD. So, it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Liz, Despite my reduced activity in nominating pages for deletion since your msg on my tp, there continues to be a lack of participation in Pakistan-related AfD which is realy concerning. Can we draftify the articles at minimum if they're not eligible for soft deletion? —  Saqib ( talk) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Saqib ( talk) 19:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
There has been a decline in AFD participation for over a year now. I don't see any editor advocating Draftification so I'd rather see if this relisting encourages mor participation over the coming week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Liz, I see.. So it means some reforms are the need of the time. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Saqib, thanks for the link to this discussion, I didn't know about it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Nominator is correct; the subject is a retail outlet. In general I agree that the article is promotional in tone and needs significant cleanup to become encyclopedic. However, I find WP:SIGCOV in the Express Tribune, plus the Dawn and The News sources already in the article that would clear WP:NCORP. It's a weak keep because it's unclear to me how to validate whether these examples are churnalism, and I don't know enough about Pakistani news outlets to know if they are afflicted with the issues posed by WP:NEWSORGINDIA. (RS Noticeboard discussions are mixed but appear to lean on the side of considering them RS.) I could probably be convinced otherwise but this is my take after reviewing the sources and searching for more. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Dclemens1971, The coverage in The News is based on an interview that only briefly mentions the subject, so I shall label it as a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:NORG states Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Meanwhile, articles in The Express Tribune and DAWN , published on the same day - 29 September 2023 - to mark the subject's launch and the PROMO tone in both coverages suggests they're based on PR stuff and for PR purpose. WP:SIRS states that coverage based on based on a company's marketing materials shouldn't be acceptable for WP:N. While they're suitable for WP:V purpose, but using them to establish GNG seems inadequate given the rigorous sourcing requirements for establishing WP:N. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks Saqib. I agree with your source analysis and changed my !vote to delete. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The magazine has just enough coverage to warrant an article. The nominator hasn't shown that the sources are actually paid for, and the claim that the article's original creators has been banned is false. Cortador ( talk) 20:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Cortador, But I don't see enough coverage. Please see my assessment above timestamped 20:58, 17 June 2024. WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance! Page logs clearly indicate this article was deleted and re-created multiple times for blatant advertising by SPAs including by now blocked Special:Contributions/Zara-ahmad and Special:Contributions/Nokhaiz Kaunpal. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 21:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with Saqib's rationale above, none of the references are anything other than regurgitated company PR. Also "Mentions" and "Coverage" are not part of our notability criteria, it is the content that we look at. HighKing ++ 20:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Heer Da Hero

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

I couldn't find much about this drama in RS except for some ROTM coverage like this in DAWN and coverage like this in Daily Times, which is churnalism and also falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer: Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Daily Times ( [41]) and Dawn ( [42]) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 ( talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • 188.29.129.61, I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn, signed by Sadaf Haider, and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": "This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show..- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Mushy Yank, But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. —  Saqib ( talk) 20:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Daily Times article is clearly marked as "Staff Report", so it is reliable - it is not a web desk report. 2A01:E0A:C39:5CB0:AC70:C0B4:482D:B6E8 ( talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • IP - WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance. And Daily Times is known for publishing CHURNALISM styled articles as evident in the PROMO tone used. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

information Note: This page was created by 182.182.100.177 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and edited by 39.34.171.59 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Avadh990 -- all blocked for UPE sock farming. Saqib ( talk I contribs) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Bad Gumaan

AfDs for this article:
Bad Gumaan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like " a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --— Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @ 223.123.5.217 ( talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. —  Saqib ( talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile ( talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? —  Saqib ( talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 ( talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MfD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Philippines

Datu Mombao Romato

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

Non-notable local politician. As mayor, does not meet NPOL presumed notability. Could not find any sources suitable to satisfy the GNG, references are to facebook posts and reports (primary). microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 13:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Demetrio Cortes

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

Does not have references even though it is a biography, the only thing I could find were news outlets talking about his son, Demetrio Cortes Jr. TheNuggeteer ( talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. References found via GSearch are mostly primary sources from the University itself. Do note that several notable academics and engineers did study here but Notability is not inherited. Alternatively, redirect to University_of_the_Philippines_College_of_Engineering#Academic_departments per WP:ATD. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sirang Lupa

AfDs for this article:
Sirang Lupa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlikely to pass WP:GEOLAND. Another barangay article made/maintained by the infamous Ivan Clarin or his socks. The only references used – a page from Calamba's official website and a source from the Philippine Statistics Authority – are not strong enough to strengthen the notability of the topic. The Calamba website may also lean towards non-independent source. A casual search on news using keywords "Sirang Lupa" AND "Calamba" only yields two results ( source1 and source2), both only mentioning Sirang Lupa in a trivial, fleeting manner. At worse, redirect (again) to Calamba, Laguna. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2017 Tanay bus accident

2017 Tanay bus accident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. GNews shows a temporary ban on field trips which lasted merely six months. A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion. I've also added the reference mentioned above as a citation in said entry. Lenticel ( talk) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge - Per nominator
TheNuggeteer ( talk) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this well-developed article as a legitimate SPINOFF that passes EVENT. Just 7 years have passed since this accident in which 50 people died. Societal impact beyond the event was acknowledged by nom. Deleting this article will further increase the disparity between the accidents that are being kept and deleted for developed nations versus developing nations. This nomination raises a major equity concern. gidonb ( talk) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Satisfies WP:LASTING, accident led to nationwide reforms on field trips and other off-campus activities throughout all school levels up to college in the Philippines in both private and public institutions – instituted after the ban was lifted. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 14:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present); Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. I'll gladly change my !vote if anyone can find at least two retrospective sources to demonstrate sustained coverage, as opposed to news articles and updates. Whether people died or whether it happened in the Philippines are not reasons to keep an article, as I'm sure the other !voters are well aware. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
This is a distraction. The article should be kept by EVENT. The rest is something to keep in mind. A general concern. gidonb ( talk) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Romy Tiongco

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)) reply
    • Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
    TheNuggeteer ( talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck ( talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer ( talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.
    So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck ( talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T· C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dean Ebarle

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I researched Dean Ebarle, it has some notability, being the defender for a popular football team, im not that much interested in football, so correct me or ping me if im wrong.
TheNuggeteer ( talk) 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you present the sources of your research? Svartner ( talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you know of any sources, please mention them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Denice Zamboanga

AfDs for this article:
Denice Zamboanga (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on this mixed martial artist was deleted three years ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denice Zamboanga as failing to meet either mixed martial arts notability or general notability. At the time, there were also multiple drafts, probably because someone was trying to game the system. The originators were then blocked for sockpuppetry. This article does not differ materially from the deleted article. The subject still is not top-ten-ranked, and so does not meet mixed martial arts notability. The article does not speak for itself and explain how the subject meets general notability. The subject's association with the ONE Championship is now verified, but "so what?", participation in the ONE Championship is not grounds for notability. The article has been reference-bombed, but nothing in the article refers to significant coverage in an article that does not speak for itself. This article differs enough from the deleted article so that speedy deletion is not in order; but it does not differ enough from the deleted article to avoid deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Philippines. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Sources 4, 8, 9, 20 and 24 are all RS that talks about her, the article seems to meet notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Source #4 is her brother talking, and the subject is only namedropped. Source #8 interviews her, and almost entirely consists of quotes from the subject. Source #9 ... inquirer.net is a reliable source, but that's a scanty article consisting of five sentences aside from quotes from the subject, and that barely scrapes by if at all. #20 looks like a good source. #24 is scanty routine sports coverage. I'm not digging deeper one way or another, but they're weak reeds to hang a keep. Ravenswing 02:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comments She has never met WP:NMMA. The first source mentioned above is an article about her brother, she is mentioned in passing because she was on the same fight card. The next three are pre-fight articles about her first match in the promotion's Grand Prix tournament (which would be typical coverage for any fighter). The final reference is a report on that fight, which she lost. Even if you believe that coverage is significant, it is all about one event. Didn't check other references, so I'm not voting yet. Papaursa ( talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In addition to the sources already in the article, there is [ [43]] and [ [44]]. Not sure if it is enough to meet the notability guidelines though. Let'srun ( talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The subject does not meet criteria for WP:MMA. Passing mentions, quotes, interviews, event announcement and results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun ( talk) 16:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Meets WP:NMMA with sources mentioned by Oaktree and Let's run. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    How can you say she meets WP:NMMA? Have you even read the guidelines? Subject needs to be ranked top 10 in the world not a single promotion. She is not in the Top 10 (or even in contenders) according to Sherdog rankings [45] and according to Tapology she is #58 in the world. [46]. She does not meet WP:NMMA at all. Lekkha Moun ( talk) 05:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. I don't understand how very experienced editors can vary so widely on how they evaluate sources and their reliability. But it happens every day in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: She gets a fair bit of coverage in Filipino media [47], [48], [49], during and after matches. This suggests notability. I might call this a weak keep, but I think we have enough. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete: She quite clearly does not meet WP:NMMA, and as for WP:GNG, there are a few reliable sources, but not enough content is from them to justify notability, and too much comes from name drops/non-independent sources. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Baris Tasci

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Syron Saut

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Light and Space Contemporary

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

Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shortcut


Singapore

Basanth Sadasivan

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

Minor coverage in mediocre sources, but doesn’t appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, and Singapore. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. JohnInDC ( talk) 23:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:Pseudo-biographies hits the nail with this quote:
    If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.
    The scattering of third party articles concerning (or sometimes merely including) the subject are not varied or in depth. Indeed the article must rely on the subject himself for such basic biographical facts as his birthdate (sourced to his Facebook page); his attendance and accomplishments at Durham University (his own Twitter feed); and his attendance at and degree from University College, London (his own LinkedIn account). In like fashion his high school attendance is not evidenced by any third party source but by a listing of graduates published by the school; and his travel industry employment, by employer releases. Further, lots of people have visited every UN country. It may be a great personal accomplishment but is not significant enough for either a standalone article or a personal one leveraging on it. JohnInDC ( talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is only a little in the way of significant coverage, and it fails WP:NSUSTAINED. There was a small flurry of news within the first couple of months following his arrival in Tuvalu. Since then, he's had some exposure as a source of travel advice, including one article in which he's the sole focus, but these aren't coverage of him. Largoplazo ( talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per reasons above. Not every world traveler, can get a page. Hyperbolick ( talk) 07:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per nom. Notwithstanding the fact that the article needs improving, the individual has had sufficient coverage in the media. It is also flawed that there is just one article where he is the sole focus as per [1] [2] However, it also appears that the article's subject appeared on a podcast by what appears to be the official Singporese News Channel (Channel News Asia) [3]. Why this was not referenced at any stage of the article is hard to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.136.179 ( talk) 7:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject has been in multiple news sources, including reputable heavyweights like Forbes, the Straits Times and CNN. The line determining what constitutes 'coverage' is a blurred one but at the end of the day his name, achievements and experiences are constantly the subject matter of multiple articles. Other world travelers with far less 'coverage' (e.g. Sal Lavallo, Jorn Bjorn Augestad) already have pages so let's try not to shift the goalposts based on our impressions of the individual page writers. — Teampkf ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The above charade is part of a protracted witch hunt by a group of disgruntled editors (namely @ JohnInDC and @ Largoplazo) who are unhappy at the fact that I did not accept some of their edits on the above page. First they opted to make unexplained deletions of sections of the article without discussing them first. Next they opted to post several threatening messages on my talk page (which have since been deleted) aimed at intimidating me into submission. When they found they were getting nowhere, they are now trying to get the article deleted which is interesting considering that they were so interested in the article previously and had so many edits to make (to the point that they engaged in edit warring behavior). A history of all these interactions can be seen on the original page’s history. It is important that Wikipedia does not condone such bullying behavior that also borders on harassment. Perceived “senior editors” do not have the right to push their way around an inclusive community like Wikipedia and attempt to use their “seniority” to intimidate others into accepting their way. Teddybrutus ( talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I already warned you informally about not assuming good faith and accusing people, based on nothing, of ill motives instead of understanding and accepting the perfectly valid motives that they gave. I also pointed out that your accusations were nonsensical. But here you are again, apparently needing to stick to your unfounded and absurd witch hunt theory rather than accept there are normal procedural reasons for this. Therefore, I've posted a formal, and final, warning to your talk page. You may be close to being blocked. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Teddybrutus: I came across this article while using a semi-automated tool to review recent edits, and have no familiarity with whatever conflict you may be describing between yourself, JohnInDC, and Largoplazo. There is no "witch hunt", and you can see from my contribution history that I've not had any interaction with the page or with those editors pertaining to this page prior to nominating it for deletion. I'd recommend you focus on the page's serious issues rather than resorting to unfounded accusations. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 02:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "'Most beautiful mountain in the world' should be on your bucket list". 25 January 2024.
  2. ^ https://www.webintravel.com/turning-to-human-advice-on-travel-planning-in-the-age-of-ai-and-chatgpt/ one article
  3. ^ "Daily Cuts - Destination Everywhere".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While those advocating Keep are all low edit accounts (and the article creator), several do argue that the quality of the sources is adequate so I think it's worth a relisting although it might be closed early.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This clearly fails WP:NSUSTAINED as stated above, and it's questionable whether there is even WP:SIGCOV (interviews with the subject do not count). In addition, I strongly suspect the page creator has an undisclosed WP:COI. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    agree with page creator having undisclosed COI
    previously posted evidence linking page creator to basanth sadasivan (might be same person) and was deleted 217.165.56.63 ( talk) 05:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nothing in the profile strikes me as particularly notable. Agree with above comments re: WP:NSUSTAINED.- KH-1 ( talk) 12:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there is little coverage of great significance, honestly. Article topic fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon  mention me on reply; thanks!) 06:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tan Yinglan

AfDs for this article:
Tan Yinglan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:
Oblivy ( talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

South Korea

Republic of Pelau (micronation)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. While I don't have access to Micronations (Ryan et al. 2006), the CBS News article doesn't mention Pelau at all. A quick WP:BEFORE doesn't give anything either, except, when the term "micronation" is removed from the search, a lot of misspellings of Palau.

Even assuming the 2006 book does indeed mention Pelau, a single book mentioning it (along with many other such micronations) isn't enough for GNG. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as a hoax. The Micronations book is accessible through the Internet Archive ( [53]) and Pelau is not mentioned anywhere. Astaire ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks a lot! Looking at the page range given (pp. 90–93), the book appears to talk about the "Principality of Vikesland" and the "Great United Kiseean Kingdom", but no mention of Pelau at all. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment note ongoing sockpuppet investigation. This page and Muhammad Louqman have had consistent issues with sockpuppeting before. This should be speedy deleted imo 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 05:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Taiwan related deletions

Lee Bu-ti

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

Not meeting WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NGYMNASTICS. Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Taiwan. Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This modern source mentions him as attending a sporting event and them specifically taking time to mention that he attended the event (with a picture) makes me feel like he was likely a notable gymnast. This source also mentions him and includes a picture of a Taiwan newspaper clipping talking about that year's Olympics, but I can't read it. I feel we'd probably find something if we looked in a Taiwanese newspaper archive, but I don't know of one... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. The sources found by BeanieFan11 ( talk · contribs).
    2. Yang, Wuxun 楊武勳 (1977-11-19). "高英傑 這樣成為 職業球員？美球探緊迫釘人‧李武智穿針引線" [Is this how Gao Yingjie becomes a professional player? U.S. scouts urgently target someone, Lee Moo-chi leads the way]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 3.

      The article notes: "以目前的情形看來，辛辛那提紅人隊在華的聯絡人李武智是最清楚整個事情來龍去脈的人。因為，從高英傑被美國球保看中，到被網羅，乃至與辛辛那提紅人隊簽約，李武智一直居中聯繫。"

      From Google Translate: "Judging from the current situation, Lee Bu-ti, the contact person of the Cincinnati Reds in China, is the person who knows the ins and outs of the whole matter best. Because, from the time Gao Yingjie was spotted by the American football team, to being recruited, and even signing with the Cincinnati Reds, Li Wuzhi has always been in the middle."

      The article notes: "他透過關係認識在台北美國學校擔任體育教師的李武智，聘他為駐華的聯絡人，希望他促成這件事。李武智曾獲選為我國參加墨西哥奧運會的體操選手。他太太是美國人，也在台北美國學校教書。李武智與台北體專棒球隊教練林敏政是師大體育系同班同學，因此又找林敏政幫忙。不過，在事前他未向林敏政表明他與辛辛那提紅人隊的關係。"

      From Google Translate: "Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand."

      The article notes: "另外，霍森答應由李武智負責給高英傑及李來發補習英語，按月付給李武智補習費。"

      From Google Translate: "In addition, Huo Sen promised that Lee Bu-ti would be responsible for tutoring Gao Yingjie and Li Laifa in English, and would pay Li Wuzhi tutoring fees on a monthly basis."

    3. Chen, Yingzi 陳英姿 (2003-02-09). "街舞「小威」 體操明日之星 19歲的他 去年就拿下廿幾面金牌 被視為進軍奧運新秀" [Street Dance "Serena" Gymnastics Rising Star. The 19-year-old won more than 20 gold medals last year and is considered a rising star in the Olympics.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 9.

      The article notes: "當時前體操國手李武智在天母開設兒童體操營，林祥威在兒童體操營從幼稚園大班練到小學一年級，李武智看他有天分，建議他轉學到內湖的三民國小，"

      From Google Translate: "At that time, former national gymnast Li Wuzhi opened a children's gymnastics camp in Tianmu. Lin Xiangwei practiced at the children's gymnastics camp from kindergarten to first grade. Li Wuzhi saw that he had talent and suggested that he transfer to Sanmin Elementary School in Neihu."

    4. Xu, Ruiyu 許瑞瑜 (1997-10-14). "鄭為仁迷'網' 李武智願伸援手" [Zheng Weiren is obsessed with the Internet and Lee Bu-ti is willing to lend a helping hand]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. 3.

      The article notes: "我國青少年網將鄭為仁缺乏奧援的處境經本報披露之後，昨天得到了迴響，在美國學校任教二十年的李武智表示，願意免費提供鄭為仁英文以及網球技術的指導，讓鄭媽媽感到非常窩心。... 另一方面也將義務指導鄭為仁出國參加得心應手。"

      From Google Translate: "After the Taiwanese Youth Network disclosed Zheng Weiren's lack of Olympic aid to this newspaper, it received a response yesterday. Lee Bu-ti, who has taught in American schools for 20 years, expressed his willingness to provide free guidance on Zheng Weiren's English and tennis skills, which made Zheng's mother feel very heart-warming. ... On the other hand, he will also be responsible for guiding Zheng Weiren to participate in overseas participation."

    5. "洪丹桂 囊括女子體操金牌" [Hong Dangui. Won gold medal in women's gymnastics]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1962-10-29. p. 3.

      The article notes: "省運男女體操比賽已全部結束。... 男子組個人總成績冠軍則由屏東縣隊的李武智奪得。"

      From Google Translate: "All the men's and women's gymnastics competitions of the Provincial Games have ended. ... The overall individual championship in the men's group was won by Lee Bu-ti of the Pingtung County team."

    6. "世運代表初選 一五二人合格 田徑複選定明年三二九舉行 游泳選手僅蘇金德入圍" [152 people qualified in the primary election for World Games representatives. The track and field reselection will be held on March 29th next year, and only swimmer Su Jinde is shortlisted.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1963-11-08. p. 2.

      The article notes: "我國參加十八屆世運的體操第一期選拔合格選手，男選手十八人為： ... 李武智"

      From Google Translate: "China’s first phase of gymnastics selection for the 18th World Games consists of eighteen male athletes: ... Lee Bu-ti ..."

    7. "參加舉重健美比賽 北市選出代表 北部拳賽下月舉行 全省體操賽今結束" [Participate in weightlifting and bodybuilding competitions. Representatives from the northern city are selected. The northern boxing competition will be held next month. The provincial gymnastics competition ends today.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-12. p. 2.

      The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十一)日上午在三重正義國校揭幕，為期二天，... 男子甲、乙二組吊環的規定及自選動作，昨日已全部賽畢，甲組前三名由師大李武智、鄭虎、張明峰包辦"

      From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships kicked off yesterday (November) morning at the Sanchong Zhengyi National School and lasted for two days. ... The regulations and optional movements of the men's rings in Groups A and B were completed yesterday. The top three in Group A were taken by Li Wuzhi, Zheng Hu and Zhang Mingfeng of the National Normal University."

    8. "全省體操賽 男組師大稱霸 新莊女中膺后" [Provincial gymnastics competition, men's team from Normal University dominates, Xinzhuang Girls' Middle School graduates]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-13. p. 2.

      The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十二)日下午五時在三重正義國校閉幕，同時頒發男、女六組團體及個人優勝者獎品。全省體操賽的優勝名單如下：男甲組團體前二名師大、高雄市，個人前三名李武智、鄭虎、張明峰，"

      From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships concluded at 5:00 pm yesterday (12th) at the Sanzhongzhengyi National School. Prizes were awarded to the six male and female team and individual winners at the same time. The list of winners of the provincial gymnastics competition is as follows: the top two teams in Men's Group A are from Normal University and Kaohsiung City, and the top three individuals are Lee Bu-ti, Zheng Hu, and Zhang Mingfeng."

    9. "奧院研究員 錄取十人" [Olympiad Academy researchers admitted ten people]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-02-25. p. 6.

      The article notes: "中華民國奧林匹克委員會，甄選參加第十三屆國際奧林匹克學院研究員，成績業已評定，計錄取簡曜輝、黃賢堅、李武智、"

      From Google Translate: "The Olympic Committee of the Republic of China has selected researchers to participate in the 13th International Olympic Academy. The results have been evaluated and the candidates are Jian Yaohui, Huang Xianjian, Lee Bu-ti,"

    10. "奧林匹克學院活動 我九青年赴希參加" [Nine young people from our country went to Greece to participate in Olympic Academy activities]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-07-12. p. 8.

      The article notes: "中華民國參加第十三屆奧林匹克學院研究員九人，將於明天上午十時，坐環球公司班機離台北飛雅典，參加十三日至廿九日在那裏舉行的研究活動。... 中華民國今年遴選的九人是李武智、..."

      From Google Translate: "Nine researchers from the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China who participated in the 13th Olympic Games will fly from Taipei to Athens on a Universal flight at 10 a.m. tomorrow to participate in research activities held there from the 13th to the 29th. ... The nine people selected by the Republic of China this year are Lee Bu-ti,..."

    11. "奧林匹克研究院 夏季講座已揭幕" [Olympic Institute summer lectures have been launched]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-07-20. p. 8.

      The article notes: "國際奧林匹克研究院第十三屆夏季講座，本日在雅典古城隆重舉行揭幕典禮。... 同時，由李武智率領的中華民國十人代表團，為參加本屆講應我國青年代表。"

      From Google Translate: "The 13th Summer Lecture of the International Olympic Institute was grandly opened today in the ancient city of Athens. ...At the same time, a ten-member delegation from the Republic of China, led by Lee Bu-ti, addressed our country's youth representatives for participating in this session.:

    12. "我派團參加 世界體操節" [The country sent a delegation to participate in the World Gymnastics Festival]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1975-06-28. p. 4.

      The article notes: "中華民國體操協會昨天決定派五人代表團前往西柏林，參加七月一日舉行的第六屆世界體操節大會。我國代表團由體操協會監事陳朝傳領隊，秘書陳慧玲，團員是余思遠、李武智、陳慧穎。"

      From Google Translate: "The Gymnastics Association of the Republic of China decided yesterday to send a five-member delegation to West Berlin to participate in the 6th World Gymnastics Festival Conference to be held on 1 July. The country's delegation is led by Chen Chaochuan, Supervisor of the Gymnastics Association, and Chen Huiling, Secretary. The members are Yu Siyuan, Lee Bu-ti, and Chen Huiying."

    13. "奧運體操選手明在左營決選" [Olympic gymnast Ming in Zuoying finals]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1975-12-26. p. 8.

      The article notes: "我國參加奧運會體操賽最後決選定明日起在左營舉行，將有十四名男女選手參加。... 目前，這十四名男女選手在教練李武智和助理教練薛美林指導之下，都有很大的進步，"

      From Google Translate: "The final selection of my country's participation in the Olympic gymnastics competition will be held in Zuoying from tomorrow, and 14 male and female athletes will participate. ... Currently, these fourteen male and female players have made great progress under the guidance of coach Lee Bu-ti and assistant coach Xue Meilin."

    14. "我國柔道體操選手 將分別到日本受訓" [Taiwanese judo gymnasts will go to Japan for training]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-02-22. p. 8.

      The article notes: "前往南非參加奧會體操會外賽的我國體操代表隊，定明天中午搭機取道香港返國。... 我國體操代表隊的名單：領隊董彭年，教練李武智，助理教練薛美林"

      From Google Translate: "The Taiwanese gymnastics team, which is going to South Africa to participate in the Olympic gymnastics qualifying competition, is scheduled to fly back to China via Hong Kong at noon tomorrow. ... List of Chinese gymnastics team: Team leader Dong Pengnian, coach Lee Bu-t, assistant coach Xue Meilin"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Bu-ti ( Chinese: 李武智) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. WOW. I have no idea how Cunard finds this stuff, but it appears to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Cunard: Do you think you might be able to add a few of the sources into the article? Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I do not have time to add sources now but may do so later. Cunard ( talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All but one of the sources mentioned above are trivial passing mentions. The one that isn't is still far from the independent, secondary, non-routine SIGCOV required for sportsperson notability."Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand." JoelleJay ( talk) 22:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."

    The combination of these sources is enough to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard ( talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – Per @ Cunard. It is clear that WP:SIGCOV exists, the question is to translate the content appropriately. Svartner ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Thailand

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 03:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thailand proposed deletions


Vietnam

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Asia&oldid=1230087587"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Central Asia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Asia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Asia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Purge page cache


This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.

Asia

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Sources do not provide independent WP:SIGCOV. Unable to locate sources. Bgv. ( talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tbennert ( talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

M-T pronouns

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

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field —  Iadmc ♫ talk  10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.
    As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.
    Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.
    I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami ( talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.
    An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami ( talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)
    What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami ( talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete —  Iadmc ♫ talk  12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article—  Iadmc ♫ talk  12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss ( talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big " teach the controversy" energy.
    @ Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.
Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:
  1. "Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia" [1] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
  2. "Personal pronouns in Core Altaic" [2] by Juha Janhunen
Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. – Austronesier ( talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?
I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami ( talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles ( talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles ( talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles ( talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 ( talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod ( talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like " a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --— Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @ 223.123.5.217 ( talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. —  Saqib ( talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile ( talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? —  Saqib ( talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 ( talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahil Abbas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrawan Ghimire (2nd nomination)


  1. REDIRECT Target page name

Afghanistan

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven ( talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier ( talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG [3] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [4]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [5] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [6] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [7]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [8] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [9] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven ( talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

187.245.67.52 ( talk) 19:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply


New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short list created in 2013 that has no sources that mostly duplicates the info in the better quality List of mosques in Azerbaijan. As an WP:ATD, I'd also support a redirect to the Azerbaijan list. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Homenetmen

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

This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris; I don't know why it was undeleted. Since then (May 2020) there has been no improvement, and the article consists of unverified text/OR (which, surprisingly, spends very little time on the actual organization and fails to say much that indicates notability) and a long, long, and unencyclopedic collection of linkspam. Drmies ( talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and improve. Clarification is in order for the nomination statement above. Homenetmen was created in 2016 and was never deleted. The discussion from 2020 saw just 1 other editor vote on your original nom, which was in regards to a different article. It was your recommendation that Homenetmen be deleted as well, but the article was never officially deleted. Now, back to content, this is a pretty notable scouting organization with active chapters across the world. A simple google search yielded 419,000 results; WP:RS confirming WP:N is indeed there. There are several wiki articles which are integrated to this parent article like Homenetmen Beirut and Homenetmen Antelias, which makes the deletion of this parent article seem odd to me. With that being said, I do agree that a lot of work is needed to improve the article and remove 'spammy' content. With a bit of tough love, the article can be saved. Archives908 ( talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh ( talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

St. James Armenian Church

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

Unsourced article with no indication of notability. A BEFORE search finds nothing but run-of-the-mill local coverage of the church, and it's not a registered historic building. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep and improve- I think with a bit of time and dedication the article can be improved and expanded. A simple google search yielded 184,000 results. For an almost 100 year old church, they still seem to be quite active on their website and social platforms and they appear to engage with the wider community through planning various events. Archives908 ( talk) 13:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is about a "church located in Watertown, Massachusetts" but a search shows that there are churches of this name/denomination throughout the US. Were there an article on the denomination (with appropriate sources) this might stand, but I don't see anything that would make this one location on its own worthy of an article. Lamona ( talk) 22:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Azerbaijan

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short list created in 2013 that has no sources that mostly duplicates the info in the better quality List of mosques in Azerbaijan. As an WP:ATD, I'd also support a redirect to the Azerbaijan list. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Huseyn Mursalov

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

Soccerway stub with no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. My own searches yielded only Fanat and Sportnet, both of which are mere squad list mentions that do nothing to suggest that Mursalov is notable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Murad Gayali

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

Played in 5 matches about 6 years ago but hasn't been since. No sign of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best sources found were a goalscorer listing in Sportal, a transfer announcement based on a social media post in Offside Plus and a squad listing in Redaktor. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Aleksandr Anichenko

AfDs for this article:
Aleksandr Anichenko (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Elnur Aslanov

Elnur Aslanov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.
TheNuggeteer ( talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{ subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Bangladesh

Muhammad Abdul Malek

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Abdul Malek (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 14:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:
Salman Muqtadir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [10] and [11] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain ( talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 ( talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [12], [13], [14], and [15]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.
    See his marriage news from Prothom alo, Dhaka Tribune, The Business Standard.
    Older articles about him also show his prominence.
    See these article from Prothom Alo 1 2, Bangla Tribune, The Business Standard, Jagonews24
    Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 ( talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.-- DelwarHossain ( talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Brunei


Cambodia


China

HAHAHAHAHA (Chinese TV series)

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

TV series fails WP:GNG. GTrang ( talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

JungleTac

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

Sourced mainly to user-generated forums and the like, could not find reliable sources about them at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [16]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."

    2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"

      From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."

    3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖 系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"

      From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."

    4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards ( simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten

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

WP:BLP issues - there are too many dubious and poorly-sourced claims in this article for an article about a living person. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, China, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability. The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting [17])] as opposed to service at the national level. Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable. And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes. Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted? Oblivy ( talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time. They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies, Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace, his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews, the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion - which Pfetten chairs.
Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional. Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider "negative";
Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator. They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article. User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this. Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article. They have described themselves as "Apethope's archivist and historian", [18]. The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten, a user name which suggests an obvious COI. Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article. Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles. I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI. It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui/ User talk:GeorgeThuiller, to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon, [19]. After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links. Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work "for" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work "with" it, [20]. Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.
SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections. See, as one example, these edits, [21] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.
In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs. I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware. KJP1 ( talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO). OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing). In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.
I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article. AfD is not for conduct issues either. Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI. Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says "discouraged" and "should" regarding COI, disclosure is "must" for paid editing). Oblivy ( talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this. I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence. My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects. For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers. KJP1 ( talk) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books. I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability. I am skeptical of GNG. His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That may well be a way forward. I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING. It's a Grade I listed building, has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media. I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute. KJP1 ( talk) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources

    1. Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01). "Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire]. Les Echos (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies."

      From Google Translate: "At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations."

    2. Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22). Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.). ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事"讲座成功举办" ["Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story" Lecture Successfully Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"

      From Google Translate: "According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China."

    3. Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13). "Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company."

    4. Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29). "Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself "The Red Baron". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service."

    5. Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14). "'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."

    6. "Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions'". China Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2023-03-07. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. "This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC. But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work," said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain."

    7. Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30). "'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner'". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. "BLP Issues" does not represent such a rationale.
Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC. On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated). Once the additional sources identified by @ Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.
@ KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page. However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments. Oblivy ( talk) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wang Toghtua Bukha

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

Contested prod. Uncited. Celia Homeford ( talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, China, and Korea. Celia Homeford ( talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redirect per Cocobb8. Cannot find any sources on GBooks, Google (except for WP mirror content), Archive.org, or anywhere else that turns up any result at all for any of the romanization options given or Hangul/Hanja script provided. I doubt it's a WP:HOAX, but I think we can safely delete redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found 20 years since this article was created. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. I removed the PROD after finding plenty of sources on this individual especially in Korean. This is most likely due to the various different spellings of his name. Here in this Korean translation of the Goryeosa [1] published by the National Institute of Korean History he is listed as both "독타불화" and "톡타부카". Individual has Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article [2] as well as a Doosan Encyclopedia article [3] both listed as "왕독타불화". He also appears in Empire's Twilight: Northeast Asia under the Mongols by David M. Robinson as "Toqto'a-Buqa" as well as in Korea and the Fall of the Mongol Empire also by Robinson. ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above evidence. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 08:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The sources found by CountHacker are mostly simple passing mentions and do not help in establishing WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Changing vote: Redirect to Wang_Ko#Family as a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Cocobb8, there are two Korean-language encyclopedia articles on this individual. That is not a passing mention. Not only that, he held the the office of Prince/King of Sim/Shen (various ways to translate it), which was a major office in Goryeo-Yuan politics, and had authority over the Koreans who lived in the Yuan-controlled Liaodong area. There were various attempts to place Wang Toqto'a-Buqa on the throne of Goryeo, he wasn't just a random noble prince, but an influential prince with power and influence, who nearly became king in at least two attempts. ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ CountHacker, encyclopedic articles are tertiary sources, so they cannot be used demonstrate notability, as GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, kinds and princes are not inherently notable and must demonstrate their own notability per WP:NBIO. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.

    The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which reflects this already. Cunard ( talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per sources presented above. Other encyclopedias having an entry is a good sign we should as well. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this and the other lists below do not meet WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 2 of 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 3 of 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 4 of 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The reasons why the article is put on the wiki main space include:
1. Lists are a kind of wiki articles in Wikipedia;
2. Similar articles such as List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 have been on the main space for ages.
3. Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 etc. are sorted in YES order for easy lookup and include stroke orders information.
By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention.
Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oops
Comment you seem to have bundled different-style articles that go with List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4. The stroke-order one is the only one I would consider deleting. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Walsh90210, Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) indicates that they are all related—perhaps they are not, I don't know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh no wait, you're right. This is rather embarassing. EDIT: or maybe not, I'm deeply confused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The article links were wrong. Stroke_orders_of_CJK_Unified_Ideographs_in_YES_order,_part_3_of_4 is part of the set recently created by a single author. You tagged List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ahhhh. I see. What's best to do now—transfer the AfD tags to the stroke order lists Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Hopefully, everything is fixed now Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks correct; you might want to bundle Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) as well. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan. Saqib ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N. The remover Saqib WP:POINT, did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates WP:FAITH. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. —  Saqib ( talk) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • User:Saqib: the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention ( WP:N). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians. WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
        • As far as Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
          • TinaLees-Jones, Notability is not temporary and WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. —  Saqib ( talk) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? —  Saqib ( talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Saqib. - Amigao ( talk) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Georgia

Tbilisi Waldorf School

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

The sourcing currently does not meet WP:NCORP. There may be other sources in Georgian, which I can’t read. Notability seems very uncertain and we’re long past the 90 day limit for draftification. Mccapra ( talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletion


Hong Kong related deletions

JungleTac

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

Sourced mainly to user-generated forums and the like, could not find reliable sources about them at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

India

Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India


Indonesia

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a news story, no significant coverage beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Erddy Titaley

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

This is a poorly sourced BLP and I can't find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The best that I could find were squad listings in Bola and Indosport. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram ( talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram ( talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi ( Read! Talk!) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 ( talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram ( talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb ( talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: „Mijn leven in Indië", door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school.. "Haagsche courant". 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb ( talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
  • Axad12 ( talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 ( talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke ( talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Erigo

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

The company lacks sufficient reliable sources; not notable organization Jibbrr tybr ( talk) 15:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

delete: not notable, delete per WP:SIGCOV (nothing official pops up on google for the first few pages) Noelle!!! ( summon a demon or read smth) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources about this company. ‍ Rela tivity ⚡️ 18:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  DDG 9912   13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Archi & Meidy

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

Did not find any sources behind this series to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge/Redirect to Yohanes Surya. Traumnovelle ( talk) 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Indonesia Proposed deletions


Japan

Hirofumi Torii

AfDs for this article:
Hirofumi Torii (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD featured only a bevy of personal insults and zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply




Scan for Korea-related AfDs

Korea

Wang Toghtua Bukha

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

Contested prod. Uncited. Celia Homeford ( talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, China, and Korea. Celia Homeford ( talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redirect per Cocobb8. Cannot find any sources on GBooks, Google (except for WP mirror content), Archive.org, or anywhere else that turns up any result at all for any of the romanization options given or Hangul/Hanja script provided. I doubt it's a WP:HOAX, but I think we can safely delete redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found 20 years since this article was created. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. I removed the PROD after finding plenty of sources on this individual especially in Korean. This is most likely due to the various different spellings of his name. Here in this Korean translation of the Goryeosa [1] published by the National Institute of Korean History he is listed as both "독타불화" and "톡타부카". Individual has Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article [2] as well as a Doosan Encyclopedia article [3] both listed as "왕독타불화". He also appears in Empire's Twilight: Northeast Asia under the Mongols by David M. Robinson as "Toqto'a-Buqa" as well as in Korea and the Fall of the Mongol Empire also by Robinson. ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above evidence. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 08:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The sources found by CountHacker are mostly simple passing mentions and do not help in establishing WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Changing vote: Redirect to Wang_Ko#Family as a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Cocobb8, there are two Korean-language encyclopedia articles on this individual. That is not a passing mention. Not only that, he held the the office of Prince/King of Sim/Shen (various ways to translate it), which was a major office in Goryeo-Yuan politics, and had authority over the Koreans who lived in the Yuan-controlled Liaodong area. There were various attempts to place Wang Toqto'a-Buqa on the throne of Goryeo, he wasn't just a random noble prince, but an influential prince with power and influence, who nearly became king in at least two attempts. ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ CountHacker, encyclopedic articles are tertiary sources, so they cannot be used demonstrate notability, as GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, kinds and princes are not inherently notable and must demonstrate their own notability per WP:NBIO. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.

    The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which reflects this already. Cunard ( talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per sources presented above. Other encyclopedias having an entry is a good sign we should as well. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply



Laos


Malaysia

Dana KCM

AfDs for this article:
Dana KCM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Charitable foundation that doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Created 10 years ago by an account that did nothing else on Wikipedia, no content edits or inbound links have been made since. The references are two old, deleted newspaper articles simply repeating the foundation's press release. It really doesn't seem like the sort of coverage we'd need to write a decent article on this subject. Searching for other sources I just get social media hits suggesting this foundation might not have been active past 2015. Here2rewrite ( talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

There used to be one book reference, but I just deleted it because it didn't actually say what the article said that it did (it was just the authors of a study thanking the foundation for a grant in 1 sentence, and non-significant) Mrfoogles ( talk) 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Proposed deletions


Mongolia


Nepal

Nepal Proposed deletions

Deletion review

Pakistan

Shafkat Saeed

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. And the third source is just routine coverage. LibStar ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mayor of Benazirabad

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

Fails GNG - non-notable office Saqib ( talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTCRIT - we don't need list of red links.. Saqib ( talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shafqat Baloch

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

The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed ( talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates ( Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial [AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial [AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. -- Imperial [AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:
There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.
How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 ( talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial [AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.
Regards Rawn3012 ( talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Operation Kahuta

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

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed ( talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed ( talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed ( talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [27] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sanghar camel amputation incident

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

It was a sad incident but WP is a not a newspaper. Clearly fails NEVENT! Saqib ( talk I contribs) 06:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sardar Khan Niazi

AfDs for this article:
Sardar Khan Niazi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The BLP clearly falls short of meeting the GNG as well NJOURNALIST - It was previously nominated for deletion back in 2017, but it survived due to insufficient participation. The only participant who voted to keep it was a sock account who provided no strong sourcing based on GNG. The sockpuppet also claimed that the subject had received one award. However, per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Saqib ( talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

In the last nomination, @ Lourdes: shared a good rationale to keep this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 ( talk) 22:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Sachi Baat SK Niazi k Sath should be a redirect to this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 ( talk) 22:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
IP - I guess I pointed out that per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Similarly, positions such as "Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station" do not inherently establish WP:N or automatically justify a WP BLP. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ahsan Boxer

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

IMO, the subject fails to meet the GNG. This BLP is relying on unreliable sources and I haven't found much in RS either about this subject that could help establish GNG. The BLP primarily focuses on the subject's 2013 arrest but WP:NOTNEWS. Saqib ( talk) 10:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The creator of this BLP ProudRafidi also seems to have COI. —  Saqib ( talk) 10:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Syed Ibne Abbas

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

Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject is non-notable diplomat as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. ROTM coverage like this is not considered towards establishing GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 16:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The anon IP says "Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable." Absolutely false. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This one fails to get third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich ( talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili ( talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
    • Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
    • Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
    • The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    • Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
    • The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich ( talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan. Saqib ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N. The remover Saqib WP:POINT, did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates WP:FAITH. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. —  Saqib ( talk) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • User:Saqib: the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention ( WP:N). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians. WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
        • As far as Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
          • TinaLees-Jones, Notability is not temporary and WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. —  Saqib ( talk) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? —  Saqib ( talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Saqib. - Amigao ( talk) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NEVENT. No lasting effects. Saqib ( talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS, but WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable, and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent. AddWitty NameHere 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
AddWittyNameHere, Noted. How about WP:TOOSOON ? —  Saqib ( talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles) PARAKANYAA ( talk) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
PARAKANYAA, Sure - I'm fine with merge into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as the event has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in international media: 9 June 2024, 11 June 2024, 16 June 2024. Maybe rename the article, but such events are almost always notable due to Pakistan Army connection. I'd suggest to defer this AFD for a year so we can see the lasting impact. 103.12.120.46 ( talk) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • IP- As per this report, Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge as per above. The event does not seem to be too outstanding from other terrorist activities in Pakistan to merit its own article. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven ( talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier ( talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG [34] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [35]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [36] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [37] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [38]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [39] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [40] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven ( talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Murree rebellion of 1857

Murree rebellion of 1857 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison ( talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr ( talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus ( talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Anantnag encounter

2023 Anantnag encounter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion. RangersRus ( talk) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations? Mdann52 ( talk) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: as per Hawkeye7, also article need to clean up! Thank you. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as per the several opinions above. Hyperbolick ( talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep: The subjects seems to have widespread coverage which makes it notable, maybe it needs to be improved but not deleted EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shivaharkaray

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

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON—it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! Jovian Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Saqib: This from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. Jovian Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Jovian Eclipse, But there are Indian RS confirming the existence of three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan, which includes Shivaharkaray such as The New Indian Express, The Economic Times. Plus, there are books that mention it too. You can just do a quick search on Google Books to check it out. —  Saqib ( talk) 07:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: This is supposed to be a very well-regarded shrine for Pakistani Hindus, for at least a century just as the other Shakti Peethas are. Every source you listed has come into existence after the aforementioned edit on 18 June 2021, which makes it blatantly clear that their reference was nothing other than Wikipedia (the ET article even explicitly says so). The books are all self-published ebooks, not academic works from well-reputed presses. The NIE article refers to a place called Karavipur where the temple is located, and it is again supposed to be near a railway station named Parkai. A quick 5-minute online research will reveal that none of those two exist anywhere in Pakistan. Also note that every "source" is either about the Shakti Peethas in general or about Hinglaj, but none about this temple itself. That also makes it fail WP:N. Jovian Eclipse 09:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Pakistan Falah Party

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

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore ( talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., -- Soman ( talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. —  Saqib ( talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
        • The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. -- Soman ( talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
          • Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. —  Saqib ( talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Opay

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC). reply
Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. —  Saqib ( talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

::@ Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding. 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
48JCL, What made you say this? —  Saqib ( talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Courtesy ping to @ CNMall41, @ Saqib, @ Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggested Parwiz ahmadi ( talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Created with templates {{ ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
https://www.cbn.gov.ng/supervision/fi.asp?name=OPAY%20DIGITAL%20SERVICES%20LIMITED%20(FORMERLY%20PAYCOM%20NIGERIA%20LIMITED)&institutetype=Mobile%20Money%20Operator Yes Talks about Opay and it's former name Yes Official publication of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Yes It values the companies existence in Nigeria. Yes Because it isn't from the company, it is therefore a secondary source.
https://www.theafricareport.com/346765/nigeria-opay-palmpay-face-scrutiny-amid-rising-appeal/ Yes Listing Opay among other fintech in Nigeria and a problem Yes Per RS. Yes Fintechs in Nigeria received a significant report based on the scrutiny. Yes Wasn't biased from a routine view. A news report. https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/
https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/ Yes Reporting a press conference of Opay Yes Punch news is reliable per WP:NGRS. Yes A press reportage. – Much more of a primary coverage since it was a press conference or thereso. —
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/olu-akanmu-steps-down-as-president-of-opay/ Yes Only about Opay and the CEO's withdrawal Yes Per WP:NGRS Yes Received massive reportage of a stepping CEO means the company is notable. Yes A secondary news report
https://thenationonlineng.net/fact-check-video-of-opay-agents-protest-in-ikeja-falsely-shared-as-recent/ Yes A problem with the company's service Yes The Nation is reliable Yes Such rallies dress the media attention. Yes A secondary report. Why will a company drags it's name down.
https://dailypost.ng/2023/04/08/kano-court-sentences-opay-agent-to-nine-months-in-jail-for-stealing/ Yes Problem again. Yes Per WP:NGRS. Yes Man's court case over Opay Yes A court case and arrest of an Opay agent is a secondary report
https://www.thecable.ng/opay-partners-verve-to-roll-out-opay-instant-debit-card-get-yours-anytime-anywhere-instantly/ Yes Only about the subject Yes Ditto Yes Partnership to such a firm is usually taken to the media in Nigeria as it benefits the mass. Yes A secondary report thigh we can't tell if the report was called. I wonder term this primary because it came from a secondary source.
https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2022/04/14/opay-obtains-approval-of-cbe-to-issue-prepaid-cards/ Yes Ditto Yes Daily News Egypt is a newspaper with editorial policy. Yes Approval by the nations bank is a significant coverage Yes From a secondary source.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/africa-focused-payment-firm-opay-040352184.html Yes Ditto – I don't know about Yahoo finance but it's mostly reliable – – —
https://leadership.ng/opay-wins-in-fintech-category-at-nitdas-digital-nigeria-2023-awards/ Yes An award ceremony Yes Per NGRS Yes Award ceremony are often significant especially when it's from NITDA Yes From a non primary coverage
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/opay-wins-advan-consumer-choice-award-for-best-fintech-2023/ Yes Ditto Yes Ditto – An ward ceremony that covers only one company is likely questionable. Yes From a secondary source. —
https://punchng.com/opay-gets-wef-recognition-on-financial-inclusion/ Yes Yes Per NGRS Yes Received SIGCOV from an international organisation. Yes From a secondary source.
https://leadership.ng/opay-earns-cnbc-and-statista-global-ranking-in-digital-payment-category/ About a championship award won by Opay Yes Ditto Yes Why not Yes Non primary coverage.

Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. The fact is that other website you cited are blogs. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That was an error. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:
  • This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
  • This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
  • This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
  • This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing ++ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You can't spin PR or company-generated information into notability - that's a pretty basic foundation of our guidelines. Nor can you t rely on an article that discusses the app to establish the notability of the company - another fairly basic part of our guidelines - see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. You've also missed some pertinent points relating to the OUTCOME essay you linked to - first, its an essay and not one of our guidelines, second it speaks in generalities and not specifics. For specifics, you need to look at NCORP *guidelines* - the basis upon which notability is established - which I've linked to in the analysis of sources above.
You pointed to some other sources. In summary, none of those meet NCORP guidelines for establishing the notability of the company either. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines as you have repeated the same misunderstanding. For example, this article in Nairametrics] is written by a tech contributor about the app, not the company. The start of paragraph 3 contains one sentence about the company but has zero in-depth information about the company and a single sentence is not sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH criteria. The next reference entitled "The Digital Silk Road" is available through the WP library and is 10 pages. The topic company gets a single one-line mention on page 4. That is insufficient and this reference also fails CORPDEPTH. For your other two links, please see WP:GHITS but in summary, we require specific sources, the volume of "hits" is not one of the criteria. HighKing ++ 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you perhaps tell me why OPay is non-notable. Aside from the news sources that you have discredited for reasons best known to you, can you give me a rundown on the following sources?
Adinlewa, Toyin (2022). "Effectiveness of Opay ORide outdoor advertisements on market expansion in Akure metropolis". African Social Science and Humanities Journal. 3 (2). ISSN  2709-1317 – via AJOL.
Ogiriki, T.; Atagboro, E. (2022). "EMERGENCE OF FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY AND MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA". BW Academic Journal. 1 (1).
Nezhad, Mahshid Mehr; Hao, Feng (2021). OPay: an Orientation-based Contactless Payment Solution Against Passive Attacks. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '21). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 375–384.
Omotayo, Funmilola O.; Tony-Olorondu, Josephine N. (31 August 2023). "Promoting Cashless Economy: The Use of Online Electricity Payment Channels in the Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective – via Sage Journals.
Southwood, Russell (2022). "Mobile money: From transferring cash by SMS to a digital payments ecosystem (2000–20)". Africa 2.0. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
I can go on for some time but I want to sternly believe that you have understood the point I am trying to make. Best, Reading Beans 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Please, just so that we're not at cross purposes and to facilitate reviews of sources, when you're posting links, please indicate whereabouts in the sources you believe the content meets GNG/NCORP (i.e. in-depth "Independent Content", etc) - at least then we'll know you've actually read them yourself. As to the links you've provided:
  • this analysis of the effectiveness of outdoor advertising just happened to use the topic company's billboard ad (could have been any company's billboard ad), but has zero in-depth information about the *company* and fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This research paper asks merchants questions about which payment system they use but only has 4 sentences describing the *company*. It refers to "(Lionel & Samuel, 2020)" as a source but the referred paper (available here) makes no mention of the topic company. Also, for me, the paragraph smacks of puffery/marketing but leaving that aside. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Your inclusion of this source is evidence that you didn't read it because it has nothing to do with the topic company.
  • This research report mentions the topic company twice in relation to popularity in paying electricity bills. In passing. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Finally, Russell Southwood's book (available at jstor) also mentions the company in passing, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH.
I've responded to your comments about the relationship between GNG and NCORP below. HighKing ++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Reponse Thankfully, the AfD isn't decided by a count of !votes, but by the application of our guidelines. In this case, I've pointed out how each and every reference fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The editors who !voted to Keep don't appear to grasp the fact that the guidelines for establishing notability of a company require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company*. HighKing ++ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [ source1] [ source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Hi Vanderwaalforces, no doubt the company exists but neither of those sources meets GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Nairametrics article discusses the app, not the company and fails CORPDEPTH (I discuss this above) and the Businessday article appears to rely entirely on an interview with Folorunsho Aliu, group managing director of Telnet, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing ++ 15:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • All I see from your statement is a confusion. There is no point debating. If the app was discussed, theirs no need differentiating it from the company. It is part of the company. This is not like a father and son scenario. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not trying to save this article that was why I haven't involve myself lately even though I created it. But I look forward to valuable reasons. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No, that's wrong. If the app is notable, then we'd have an article about the app (also meeting GNG/NCORP guidelines). This article topic is the company. WP:NCORP applies to articles on companies, but you should be aware that those same guidelines apply also to articles on products. When you are reading the guidelines, you should be aware of this fact, otherwise you might incorrectly make assumptions about product notability and company notability. In a nutshell, notability of a company does not bestow notability to their products/services and vice versa. A review of a product does not assist in determining notability of a company. HighKing ++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ HighKing, I disagree with this submission. NCORP and other guidelines are not above GNG; they are a branch of GNG if I’m not mistaken. I see a lot of misunderstanding here. If an entry meets GNG, I don’t think it would need to meet a different criteria for “product” or “company” to be considered notable. Best, Reading Beans 03:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • We've seen this argument plenty of times before - I suppose when all else fails, attack NCORP guidelines. First, both GNG and NCORP are guidelines and nobody is placing one "above" the other, however that might be done. GNG are general guidelines which apply (in general) to all topics. Some areas need additional explanations/examples and elaborations and therefore the GNG is augmented/supplemented/explained for those topic areas in other guidelines. For companies/organizations, we use NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You seem to misunderstand WP:NCORP. Are those sources not part of being significantly covered or are you cleared on the deletion of this article? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think I misunderstand NCORP at all, I think you do. The app is not the topic of this article, therefore those sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic. In plain English, you cannot use product reviews to establish notability of the company and vice versa. HighKing ++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ HighKing, are you suggesting the app is notable and the company is not? If so, it needs a rewrite. Best, Reading Beans 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No, please don't misread what I've said. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot be used to establish notability of the other. Nothing more, nothing less. HighKing ++ 19:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Despite edit count, you are a relatively new user. I would recommend going through company deletion discussions and talk page discussions of NCORP before making such a suggestion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 00:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As editors have given counterposed readings of the quality of the sources cited, additional editors' impressions of the assembled bibliography would be highly beneficial to determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fashion Central

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

This is clearly PROMO, created by a now blocked sock puppet. It hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage. Furthermore, it is not even a magazine as the article claims, but rather a boutique or maybe some e-commerce store. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I originally closed this discussion as a Soft Deletion, not knowing until I saw the deleted page that an earlier version on this article had been deleted as a PROD. So, it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Liz, Despite my reduced activity in nominating pages for deletion since your msg on my tp, there continues to be a lack of participation in Pakistan-related AfD which is realy concerning. Can we draftify the articles at minimum if they're not eligible for soft deletion? —  Saqib ( talk) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Saqib ( talk) 19:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
There has been a decline in AFD participation for over a year now. I don't see any editor advocating Draftification so I'd rather see if this relisting encourages mor participation over the coming week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Liz, I see.. So it means some reforms are the need of the time. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Saqib, thanks for the link to this discussion, I didn't know about it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Nominator is correct; the subject is a retail outlet. In general I agree that the article is promotional in tone and needs significant cleanup to become encyclopedic. However, I find WP:SIGCOV in the Express Tribune, plus the Dawn and The News sources already in the article that would clear WP:NCORP. It's a weak keep because it's unclear to me how to validate whether these examples are churnalism, and I don't know enough about Pakistani news outlets to know if they are afflicted with the issues posed by WP:NEWSORGINDIA. (RS Noticeboard discussions are mixed but appear to lean on the side of considering them RS.) I could probably be convinced otherwise but this is my take after reviewing the sources and searching for more. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Dclemens1971, The coverage in The News is based on an interview that only briefly mentions the subject, so I shall label it as a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:NORG states Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Meanwhile, articles in The Express Tribune and DAWN , published on the same day - 29 September 2023 - to mark the subject's launch and the PROMO tone in both coverages suggests they're based on PR stuff and for PR purpose. WP:SIRS states that coverage based on based on a company's marketing materials shouldn't be acceptable for WP:N. While they're suitable for WP:V purpose, but using them to establish GNG seems inadequate given the rigorous sourcing requirements for establishing WP:N. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks Saqib. I agree with your source analysis and changed my !vote to delete. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The magazine has just enough coverage to warrant an article. The nominator hasn't shown that the sources are actually paid for, and the claim that the article's original creators has been banned is false. Cortador ( talk) 20:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Cortador, But I don't see enough coverage. Please see my assessment above timestamped 20:58, 17 June 2024. WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance! Page logs clearly indicate this article was deleted and re-created multiple times for blatant advertising by SPAs including by now blocked Special:Contributions/Zara-ahmad and Special:Contributions/Nokhaiz Kaunpal. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 21:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with Saqib's rationale above, none of the references are anything other than regurgitated company PR. Also "Mentions" and "Coverage" are not part of our notability criteria, it is the content that we look at. HighKing ++ 20:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Heer Da Hero

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

I couldn't find much about this drama in RS except for some ROTM coverage like this in DAWN and coverage like this in Daily Times, which is churnalism and also falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer: Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Daily Times ( [41]) and Dawn ( [42]) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 ( talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • 188.29.129.61, I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn, signed by Sadaf Haider, and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": "This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show..- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Mushy Yank, But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. —  Saqib ( talk) 20:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Daily Times article is clearly marked as "Staff Report", so it is reliable - it is not a web desk report. 2A01:E0A:C39:5CB0:AC70:C0B4:482D:B6E8 ( talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • IP - WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance. And Daily Times is known for publishing CHURNALISM styled articles as evident in the PROMO tone used. —  Saqib ( talk I contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

information Note: This page was created by 182.182.100.177 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and edited by 39.34.171.59 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Avadh990 -- all blocked for UPE sock farming. Saqib ( talk I contribs) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Bad Gumaan

AfDs for this article:
Bad Gumaan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like " a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --— Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @ 223.123.5.217 ( talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. —  Saqib ( talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile ( talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? —  Saqib ( talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 ( talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MfD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Philippines

Datu Mombao Romato

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

Non-notable local politician. As mayor, does not meet NPOL presumed notability. Could not find any sources suitable to satisfy the GNG, references are to facebook posts and reports (primary). microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 13:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Demetrio Cortes

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

Does not have references even though it is a biography, the only thing I could find were news outlets talking about his son, Demetrio Cortes Jr. TheNuggeteer ( talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. References found via GSearch are mostly primary sources from the University itself. Do note that several notable academics and engineers did study here but Notability is not inherited. Alternatively, redirect to University_of_the_Philippines_College_of_Engineering#Academic_departments per WP:ATD. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sirang Lupa

AfDs for this article:
Sirang Lupa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlikely to pass WP:GEOLAND. Another barangay article made/maintained by the infamous Ivan Clarin or his socks. The only references used – a page from Calamba's official website and a source from the Philippine Statistics Authority – are not strong enough to strengthen the notability of the topic. The Calamba website may also lean towards non-independent source. A casual search on news using keywords "Sirang Lupa" AND "Calamba" only yields two results ( source1 and source2), both only mentioning Sirang Lupa in a trivial, fleeting manner. At worse, redirect (again) to Calamba, Laguna. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2017 Tanay bus accident

2017 Tanay bus accident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. GNews shows a temporary ban on field trips which lasted merely six months. A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion. I've also added the reference mentioned above as a citation in said entry. Lenticel ( talk) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge - Per nominator
TheNuggeteer ( talk) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this well-developed article as a legitimate SPINOFF that passes EVENT. Just 7 years have passed since this accident in which 50 people died. Societal impact beyond the event was acknowledged by nom. Deleting this article will further increase the disparity between the accidents that are being kept and deleted for developed nations versus developing nations. This nomination raises a major equity concern. gidonb ( talk) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Satisfies WP:LASTING, accident led to nationwide reforms on field trips and other off-campus activities throughout all school levels up to college in the Philippines in both private and public institutions – instituted after the ban was lifted. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 14:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present); Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. I'll gladly change my !vote if anyone can find at least two retrospective sources to demonstrate sustained coverage, as opposed to news articles and updates. Whether people died or whether it happened in the Philippines are not reasons to keep an article, as I'm sure the other !voters are well aware. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
This is a distraction. The article should be kept by EVENT. The rest is something to keep in mind. A general concern. gidonb ( talk) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Romy Tiongco

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)) reply
    • Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
    TheNuggeteer ( talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck ( talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer ( talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.
    So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck ( talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T· C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dean Ebarle

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I researched Dean Ebarle, it has some notability, being the defender for a popular football team, im not that much interested in football, so correct me or ping me if im wrong.
TheNuggeteer ( talk) 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you present the sources of your research? Svartner ( talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you know of any sources, please mention them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Denice Zamboanga

AfDs for this article:
Denice Zamboanga (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on this mixed martial artist was deleted three years ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denice Zamboanga as failing to meet either mixed martial arts notability or general notability. At the time, there were also multiple drafts, probably because someone was trying to game the system. The originators were then blocked for sockpuppetry. This article does not differ materially from the deleted article. The subject still is not top-ten-ranked, and so does not meet mixed martial arts notability. The article does not speak for itself and explain how the subject meets general notability. The subject's association with the ONE Championship is now verified, but "so what?", participation in the ONE Championship is not grounds for notability. The article has been reference-bombed, but nothing in the article refers to significant coverage in an article that does not speak for itself. This article differs enough from the deleted article so that speedy deletion is not in order; but it does not differ enough from the deleted article to avoid deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Philippines. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Sources 4, 8, 9, 20 and 24 are all RS that talks about her, the article seems to meet notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Source #4 is her brother talking, and the subject is only namedropped. Source #8 interviews her, and almost entirely consists of quotes from the subject. Source #9 ... inquirer.net is a reliable source, but that's a scanty article consisting of five sentences aside from quotes from the subject, and that barely scrapes by if at all. #20 looks like a good source. #24 is scanty routine sports coverage. I'm not digging deeper one way or another, but they're weak reeds to hang a keep. Ravenswing 02:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comments She has never met WP:NMMA. The first source mentioned above is an article about her brother, she is mentioned in passing because she was on the same fight card. The next three are pre-fight articles about her first match in the promotion's Grand Prix tournament (which would be typical coverage for any fighter). The final reference is a report on that fight, which she lost. Even if you believe that coverage is significant, it is all about one event. Didn't check other references, so I'm not voting yet. Papaursa ( talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In addition to the sources already in the article, there is [ [43]] and [ [44]]. Not sure if it is enough to meet the notability guidelines though. Let'srun ( talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The subject does not meet criteria for WP:MMA. Passing mentions, quotes, interviews, event announcement and results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun ( talk) 16:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Meets WP:NMMA with sources mentioned by Oaktree and Let's run. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    How can you say she meets WP:NMMA? Have you even read the guidelines? Subject needs to be ranked top 10 in the world not a single promotion. She is not in the Top 10 (or even in contenders) according to Sherdog rankings [45] and according to Tapology she is #58 in the world. [46]. She does not meet WP:NMMA at all. Lekkha Moun ( talk) 05:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. I don't understand how very experienced editors can vary so widely on how they evaluate sources and their reliability. But it happens every day in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: She gets a fair bit of coverage in Filipino media [47], [48], [49], during and after matches. This suggests notability. I might call this a weak keep, but I think we have enough. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete: She quite clearly does not meet WP:NMMA, and as for WP:GNG, there are a few reliable sources, but not enough content is from them to justify notability, and too much comes from name drops/non-independent sources. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Baris Tasci

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Syron Saut

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Light and Space Contemporary

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

Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shortcut


Singapore

Basanth Sadasivan

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

Minor coverage in mediocre sources, but doesn’t appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, and Singapore. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. JohnInDC ( talk) 23:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:Pseudo-biographies hits the nail with this quote:
    If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.
    The scattering of third party articles concerning (or sometimes merely including) the subject are not varied or in depth. Indeed the article must rely on the subject himself for such basic biographical facts as his birthdate (sourced to his Facebook page); his attendance and accomplishments at Durham University (his own Twitter feed); and his attendance at and degree from University College, London (his own LinkedIn account). In like fashion his high school attendance is not evidenced by any third party source but by a listing of graduates published by the school; and his travel industry employment, by employer releases. Further, lots of people have visited every UN country. It may be a great personal accomplishment but is not significant enough for either a standalone article or a personal one leveraging on it. JohnInDC ( talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is only a little in the way of significant coverage, and it fails WP:NSUSTAINED. There was a small flurry of news within the first couple of months following his arrival in Tuvalu. Since then, he's had some exposure as a source of travel advice, including one article in which he's the sole focus, but these aren't coverage of him. Largoplazo ( talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per reasons above. Not every world traveler, can get a page. Hyperbolick ( talk) 07:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per nom. Notwithstanding the fact that the article needs improving, the individual has had sufficient coverage in the media. It is also flawed that there is just one article where he is the sole focus as per [1] [2] However, it also appears that the article's subject appeared on a podcast by what appears to be the official Singporese News Channel (Channel News Asia) [3]. Why this was not referenced at any stage of the article is hard to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.136.179 ( talk) 7:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject has been in multiple news sources, including reputable heavyweights like Forbes, the Straits Times and CNN. The line determining what constitutes 'coverage' is a blurred one but at the end of the day his name, achievements and experiences are constantly the subject matter of multiple articles. Other world travelers with far less 'coverage' (e.g. Sal Lavallo, Jorn Bjorn Augestad) already have pages so let's try not to shift the goalposts based on our impressions of the individual page writers. — Teampkf ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The above charade is part of a protracted witch hunt by a group of disgruntled editors (namely @ JohnInDC and @ Largoplazo) who are unhappy at the fact that I did not accept some of their edits on the above page. First they opted to make unexplained deletions of sections of the article without discussing them first. Next they opted to post several threatening messages on my talk page (which have since been deleted) aimed at intimidating me into submission. When they found they were getting nowhere, they are now trying to get the article deleted which is interesting considering that they were so interested in the article previously and had so many edits to make (to the point that they engaged in edit warring behavior). A history of all these interactions can be seen on the original page’s history. It is important that Wikipedia does not condone such bullying behavior that also borders on harassment. Perceived “senior editors” do not have the right to push their way around an inclusive community like Wikipedia and attempt to use their “seniority” to intimidate others into accepting their way. Teddybrutus ( talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I already warned you informally about not assuming good faith and accusing people, based on nothing, of ill motives instead of understanding and accepting the perfectly valid motives that they gave. I also pointed out that your accusations were nonsensical. But here you are again, apparently needing to stick to your unfounded and absurd witch hunt theory rather than accept there are normal procedural reasons for this. Therefore, I've posted a formal, and final, warning to your talk page. You may be close to being blocked. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Teddybrutus: I came across this article while using a semi-automated tool to review recent edits, and have no familiarity with whatever conflict you may be describing between yourself, JohnInDC, and Largoplazo. There is no "witch hunt", and you can see from my contribution history that I've not had any interaction with the page or with those editors pertaining to this page prior to nominating it for deletion. I'd recommend you focus on the page's serious issues rather than resorting to unfounded accusations. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 02:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "'Most beautiful mountain in the world' should be on your bucket list". 25 January 2024.
  2. ^ https://www.webintravel.com/turning-to-human-advice-on-travel-planning-in-the-age-of-ai-and-chatgpt/ one article
  3. ^ "Daily Cuts - Destination Everywhere".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While those advocating Keep are all low edit accounts (and the article creator), several do argue that the quality of the sources is adequate so I think it's worth a relisting although it might be closed early.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This clearly fails WP:NSUSTAINED as stated above, and it's questionable whether there is even WP:SIGCOV (interviews with the subject do not count). In addition, I strongly suspect the page creator has an undisclosed WP:COI. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    agree with page creator having undisclosed COI
    previously posted evidence linking page creator to basanth sadasivan (might be same person) and was deleted 217.165.56.63 ( talk) 05:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nothing in the profile strikes me as particularly notable. Agree with above comments re: WP:NSUSTAINED.- KH-1 ( talk) 12:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there is little coverage of great significance, honestly. Article topic fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon  mention me on reply; thanks!) 06:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tan Yinglan

AfDs for this article:
Tan Yinglan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:
Oblivy ( talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

South Korea

Republic of Pelau (micronation)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. While I don't have access to Micronations (Ryan et al. 2006), the CBS News article doesn't mention Pelau at all. A quick WP:BEFORE doesn't give anything either, except, when the term "micronation" is removed from the search, a lot of misspellings of Palau.

Even assuming the 2006 book does indeed mention Pelau, a single book mentioning it (along with many other such micronations) isn't enough for GNG. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as a hoax. The Micronations book is accessible through the Internet Archive ( [53]) and Pelau is not mentioned anywhere. Astaire ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks a lot! Looking at the page range given (pp. 90–93), the book appears to talk about the "Principality of Vikesland" and the "Great United Kiseean Kingdom", but no mention of Pelau at all. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment note ongoing sockpuppet investigation. This page and Muhammad Louqman have had consistent issues with sockpuppeting before. This should be speedy deleted imo 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 05:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Taiwan related deletions

Lee Bu-ti

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

Not meeting WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NGYMNASTICS. Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Taiwan. Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This modern source mentions him as attending a sporting event and them specifically taking time to mention that he attended the event (with a picture) makes me feel like he was likely a notable gymnast. This source also mentions him and includes a picture of a Taiwan newspaper clipping talking about that year's Olympics, but I can't read it. I feel we'd probably find something if we looked in a Taiwanese newspaper archive, but I don't know of one... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. The sources found by BeanieFan11 ( talk · contribs).
    2. Yang, Wuxun 楊武勳 (1977-11-19). "高英傑 這樣成為 職業球員？美球探緊迫釘人‧李武智穿針引線" [Is this how Gao Yingjie becomes a professional player? U.S. scouts urgently target someone, Lee Moo-chi leads the way]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 3.

      The article notes: "以目前的情形看來，辛辛那提紅人隊在華的聯絡人李武智是最清楚整個事情來龍去脈的人。因為，從高英傑被美國球保看中，到被網羅，乃至與辛辛那提紅人隊簽約，李武智一直居中聯繫。"

      From Google Translate: "Judging from the current situation, Lee Bu-ti, the contact person of the Cincinnati Reds in China, is the person who knows the ins and outs of the whole matter best. Because, from the time Gao Yingjie was spotted by the American football team, to being recruited, and even signing with the Cincinnati Reds, Li Wuzhi has always been in the middle."

      The article notes: "他透過關係認識在台北美國學校擔任體育教師的李武智，聘他為駐華的聯絡人，希望他促成這件事。李武智曾獲選為我國參加墨西哥奧運會的體操選手。他太太是美國人，也在台北美國學校教書。李武智與台北體專棒球隊教練林敏政是師大體育系同班同學，因此又找林敏政幫忙。不過，在事前他未向林敏政表明他與辛辛那提紅人隊的關係。"

      From Google Translate: "Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand."

      The article notes: "另外，霍森答應由李武智負責給高英傑及李來發補習英語，按月付給李武智補習費。"

      From Google Translate: "In addition, Huo Sen promised that Lee Bu-ti would be responsible for tutoring Gao Yingjie and Li Laifa in English, and would pay Li Wuzhi tutoring fees on a monthly basis."

    3. Chen, Yingzi 陳英姿 (2003-02-09). "街舞「小威」 體操明日之星 19歲的他 去年就拿下廿幾面金牌 被視為進軍奧運新秀" [Street Dance "Serena" Gymnastics Rising Star. The 19-year-old won more than 20 gold medals last year and is considered a rising star in the Olympics.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 9.

      The article notes: "當時前體操國手李武智在天母開設兒童體操營，林祥威在兒童體操營從幼稚園大班練到小學一年級，李武智看他有天分，建議他轉學到內湖的三民國小，"

      From Google Translate: "At that time, former national gymnast Li Wuzhi opened a children's gymnastics camp in Tianmu. Lin Xiangwei practiced at the children's gymnastics camp from kindergarten to first grade. Li Wuzhi saw that he had talent and suggested that he transfer to Sanmin Elementary School in Neihu."

    4. Xu, Ruiyu 許瑞瑜 (1997-10-14). "鄭為仁迷'網' 李武智願伸援手" [Zheng Weiren is obsessed with the Internet and Lee Bu-ti is willing to lend a helping hand]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. 3.

      The article notes: "我國青少年網將鄭為仁缺乏奧援的處境經本報披露之後，昨天得到了迴響，在美國學校任教二十年的李武智表示，願意免費提供鄭為仁英文以及網球技術的指導，讓鄭媽媽感到非常窩心。... 另一方面也將義務指導鄭為仁出國參加得心應手。"

      From Google Translate: "After the Taiwanese Youth Network disclosed Zheng Weiren's lack of Olympic aid to this newspaper, it received a response yesterday. Lee Bu-ti, who has taught in American schools for 20 years, expressed his willingness to provide free guidance on Zheng Weiren's English and tennis skills, which made Zheng's mother feel very heart-warming. ... On the other hand, he will also be responsible for guiding Zheng Weiren to participate in overseas participation."

    5. "洪丹桂 囊括女子體操金牌" [Hong Dangui. Won gold medal in women's gymnastics]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1962-10-29. p. 3.

      The article notes: "省運男女體操比賽已全部結束。... 男子組個人總成績冠軍則由屏東縣隊的李武智奪得。"

      From Google Translate: "All the men's and women's gymnastics competitions of the Provincial Games have ended. ... The overall individual championship in the men's group was won by Lee Bu-ti of the Pingtung County team."

    6. "世運代表初選 一五二人合格 田徑複選定明年三二九舉行 游泳選手僅蘇金德入圍" [152 people qualified in the primary election for World Games representatives. The track and field reselection will be held on March 29th next year, and only swimmer Su Jinde is shortlisted.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1963-11-08. p. 2.

      The article notes: "我國參加十八屆世運的體操第一期選拔合格選手，男選手十八人為： ... 李武智"

      From Google Translate: "China’s first phase of gymnastics selection for the 18th World Games consists of eighteen male athletes: ... Lee Bu-ti ..."

    7. "參加舉重健美比賽 北市選出代表 北部拳賽下月舉行 全省體操賽今結束" [Participate in weightlifting and bodybuilding competitions. Representatives from the northern city are selected. The northern boxing competition will be held next month. The provincial gymnastics competition ends today.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-12. p. 2.

      The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十一)日上午在三重正義國校揭幕，為期二天，... 男子甲、乙二組吊環的規定及自選動作，昨日已全部賽畢，甲組前三名由師大李武智、鄭虎、張明峰包辦"

      From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships kicked off yesterday (November) morning at the Sanchong Zhengyi National School and lasted for two days. ... The regulations and optional movements of the men's rings in Groups A and B were completed yesterday. The top three in Group A were taken by Li Wuzhi, Zheng Hu and Zhang Mingfeng of the National Normal University."

    8. "全省體操賽 男組師大稱霸 新莊女中膺后" [Provincial gymnastics competition, men's team from Normal University dominates, Xinzhuang Girls' Middle School graduates]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-13. p. 2.

      The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十二)日下午五時在三重正義國校閉幕，同時頒發男、女六組團體及個人優勝者獎品。全省體操賽的優勝名單如下：男甲組團體前二名師大、高雄市，個人前三名李武智、鄭虎、張明峰，"

      From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships concluded at 5:00 pm yesterday (12th) at the Sanzhongzhengyi National School. Prizes were awarded to the six male and female team and individual winners at the same time. The list of winners of the provincial gymnastics competition is as follows: the top two teams in Men's Group A are from Normal University and Kaohsiung City, and the top three individuals are Lee Bu-ti, Zheng Hu, and Zhang Mingfeng."

    9. "奧院研究員 錄取十人" [Olympiad Academy researchers admitted ten people]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-02-25. p. 6.

      The article notes: "中華民國奧林匹克委員會，甄選參加第十三屆國際奧林匹克學院研究員，成績業已評定，計錄取簡曜輝、黃賢堅、李武智、"

      From Google Translate: "The Olympic Committee of the Republic of China has selected researchers to participate in the 13th International Olympic Academy. The results have been evaluated and the candidates are Jian Yaohui, Huang Xianjian, Lee Bu-ti,"

    10. "奧林匹克學院活動 我九青年赴希參加" [Nine young people from our country went to Greece to participate in Olympic Academy activities]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-07-12. p. 8.

      The article notes: "中華民國參加第十三屆奧林匹克學院研究員九人，將於明天上午十時，坐環球公司班機離台北飛雅典，參加十三日至廿九日在那裏舉行的研究活動。... 中華民國今年遴選的九人是李武智、..."

      From Google Translate: "Nine researchers from the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China who participated in the 13th Olympic Games will fly from Taipei to Athens on a Universal flight at 10 a.m. tomorrow to participate in research activities held there from the 13th to the 29th. ... The nine people selected by the Republic of China this year are Lee Bu-ti,..."

    11. "奧林匹克研究院 夏季講座已揭幕" [Olympic Institute summer lectures have been launched]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-07-20. p. 8.

      The article notes: "國際奧林匹克研究院第十三屆夏季講座，本日在雅典古城隆重舉行揭幕典禮。... 同時，由李武智率領的中華民國十人代表團，為參加本屆講應我國青年代表。"

      From Google Translate: "The 13th Summer Lecture of the International Olympic Institute was grandly opened today in the ancient city of Athens. ...At the same time, a ten-member delegation from the Republic of China, led by Lee Bu-ti, addressed our country's youth representatives for participating in this session.:

    12. "我派團參加 世界體操節" [The country sent a delegation to participate in the World Gymnastics Festival]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1975-06-28. p. 4.

      The article notes: "中華民國體操協會昨天決定派五人代表團前往西柏林，參加七月一日舉行的第六屆世界體操節大會。我國代表團由體操協會監事陳朝傳領隊，秘書陳慧玲，團員是余思遠、李武智、陳慧穎。"

      From Google Translate: "The Gymnastics Association of the Republic of China decided yesterday to send a five-member delegation to West Berlin to participate in the 6th World Gymnastics Festival Conference to be held on 1 July. The country's delegation is led by Chen Chaochuan, Supervisor of the Gymnastics Association, and Chen Huiling, Secretary. The members are Yu Siyuan, Lee Bu-ti, and Chen Huiying."

    13. "奧運體操選手明在左營決選" [Olympic gymnast Ming in Zuoying finals]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1975-12-26. p. 8.

      The article notes: "我國參加奧運會體操賽最後決選定明日起在左營舉行，將有十四名男女選手參加。... 目前，這十四名男女選手在教練李武智和助理教練薛美林指導之下，都有很大的進步，"

      From Google Translate: "The final selection of my country's participation in the Olympic gymnastics competition will be held in Zuoying from tomorrow, and 14 male and female athletes will participate. ... Currently, these fourteen male and female players have made great progress under the guidance of coach Lee Bu-ti and assistant coach Xue Meilin."

    14. "我國柔道體操選手 將分別到日本受訓" [Taiwanese judo gymnasts will go to Japan for training]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-02-22. p. 8.

      The article notes: "前往南非參加奧會體操會外賽的我國體操代表隊，定明天中午搭機取道香港返國。... 我國體操代表隊的名單：領隊董彭年，教練李武智，助理教練薛美林"

      From Google Translate: "The Taiwanese gymnastics team, which is going to South Africa to participate in the Olympic gymnastics qualifying competition, is scheduled to fly back to China via Hong Kong at noon tomorrow. ... List of Chinese gymnastics team: Team leader Dong Pengnian, coach Lee Bu-t, assistant coach Xue Meilin"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Bu-ti ( Chinese: 李武智) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. WOW. I have no idea how Cunard finds this stuff, but it appears to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Cunard: Do you think you might be able to add a few of the sources into the article? Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I do not have time to add sources now but may do so later. Cunard ( talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All but one of the sources mentioned above are trivial passing mentions. The one that isn't is still far from the independent, secondary, non-routine SIGCOV required for sportsperson notability."Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand." JoelleJay ( talk) 22:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."

    The combination of these sources is enough to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard ( talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – Per @ Cunard. It is clear that WP:SIGCOV exists, the question is to translate the content appropriately. Svartner ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Thailand

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 03:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thailand proposed deletions


Vietnam

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Asia&oldid=1230087587"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE