Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by British artists

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by British artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by Australian artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by Canadian artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by European artists, it seems worth giving these three a look as well. Given their distinct lack of sourcing, similar to the European list, I have a feeling they will go down as trivial just the same. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and United States of America. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all fail WP:LISTN. It's all trivia cruft. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: fail WP:LISTN, entirely original research, pretty much totally unsourced, no set inclusion criteria. I know the argument will be that this is "interesting" trivia but it's not encyclopedic. It also throws up some strange anomalies, such as the Bee Gees and Olivia Newton-John being included on both the British and Australian lists due to the dual nationalities, and songs that are predominantly by US artists but included here due to a small feature by a foreign artist: I'm still struggling to get my head around "Despacito" being included on the Canadian list... yes, I know why it is, but I don't think anyone could legitimately make an argument for the song to be Canadian, not even Justin Bieber himself. 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Richard3120 (talk)
• Delete all fail WP:LISTN, also WP:OR. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all fail WP:LISTN. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures (company)

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

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

Deleted twice under the name AC Ventures as WP:ADMASQ and failing WP:NCORP, and the current version seems no different. In particular, all sources here were already considered and rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Ventures (2nd nomination). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted a source assessment table: jlwoodwa (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"AC Ventures reaches first close of a $250M fund for Southeast Asian startups". techcrunch.com. 14 September 2022.	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	about fund, see prev	✘ No
"AC Ventures' Journey With Adrian Li: Fueling Growth and Impact in Southeast Asia". AsiaTechDaily - Asia's Leading Tech and Startup Media Platform. 9 February 2024.	blog, see prev	blog, see prev		✘ No
Shu, Catherine (23 January 2024). "AC Ventures closes its new $210M Indonesia-focused fund". TechCrunch.	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	about fund	✘ No
Rosendar, Yessar. "Indonesian VC Firm AC Ventures Closes $205 Million Fund, On The Hunt For Early Stage Startups". Forbes.	WP:FORBESCON	WP:FORBESCON		✘ No
Staff, TechNode Global (2024-01-23). "AC Ventures raises $210M to back tech-enabled businesses in Indonesia and Southeast Asia". TNGlobal. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release aggregator, see prev	press release aggregator, see prev		✘ No
"AC Ventures raises US$210 million for fifth investment fund". The Business Times. 2024-01-23. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release	? no discussion		✘ No
Mulia, Khamila (2021-12-01). "Indonesia's AC Ventures closes third fund at USD 205 million". KrASIA. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	see prev	? see prev		✘ No
"AC Ventures launches advisor community to help startups achieve operational excellence from day one". Asia Food Journal. 2023-02-21. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release	? no discussion		✘ No
"Indonesia's AC Ventures said to have closed fifth fund at around $200m". DealStreetAsia.	see prev	? no discussion	? paywall	✘ No
"AC Ventures raises US$210mil to back founders in Indonesia and Southeast Asia". Digital News Asia. 28 January 2024.	press release	? no discussion		✘ No
"AC Ventures' Pandu Sjahrir on Asean's Economic Resilience". www.bloomberg.com.	see prev	~ see prev		✘ No
"Tech in Asia - Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem". www.techinasia.com.	see prev	? see prev	about report	✘ No
Yong, Yimie (25 May 2023). "Tech sector may be in 'funding winter' but AC Ventures sees opportunities in EV, circular economy & sustainable agriculture, says Managing Partner [Q&A]". TNGlobal.	press release aggregator, see prev	press release aggregator, see prev		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Indonesia, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just the history here should be enough TBH, but I can't find anything on my end. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to K. S. Sethumadhavan#Selected filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1979 film)

Manini (1979 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, interviews, nothing that addresses the subject indepth meeting WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  08:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to List_of_Kannada_films_of_1979. Film does exist but the page has poor unreliable sources. Not much can be found other than on imdb and watchable link on Amazon Prime Video. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello@RangersRus, have you seen Liz's relist comment below? Both targets seem OK but in general, I think when the director or writer has a page, it seems more appropriate to redirect a film there than to a list (even if a list by year is really not a bad target). If you agree, can you leave a note? If you don't, please consider I obviously will not oppose a redirect to the list you mention. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Redirect target articles suggested. We need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography: I will suggest to redirect this article to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography director’s page will be more appropriate. GrabUp - Talk 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect to List_of_Kannada_films_of_1979 I agree with one the suggestions to redirect or keep.Sanwalniazik (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. Star Mississippi 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing

2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009#November, where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:53, 8 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!} 23:25, 15 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!} 23:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is an event of historical significant given that about 10 people were reported killed and 50 others seriously injured. The bombing received significant coverage of international media such as BBC, CBS, France 24, Al Jazeera and other media outlets covered the bombing incident. Ludamane (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the coverage WP:LASTING and well after the event? The number of people killed is itself not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009: where it is already covered in as much detail as in this article. There is no evidence of WP:LASTING notability, and no valid reason to split this into a separate article. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009.27.4.1.83 (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The consensus is to Keep this article but also that it needs improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in European politics

Russian interference in European politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Came across this article when doing research on the Mueller special counsel investigation. The page contains way too many quotations, close paraphrasing and improper use of a non-free source, and overall fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Czech Republic, and Russia. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There's been talk of Russian influence at the European Parliament. I've found a few sources in French [1], [2], [3]. Perhaps we need to re-work the article, but this is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What, the growing menace of the tyrannical onslaught of Russian destruction potentially threatening all of Europe is not notable?

70.26.38.47 (talk) 02:27, 11 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!} 23:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: quite clearly there are multiple independent reports of this topic, as well as from primary sources such as the European Parliament [4]. Although sourcing should be improved, needing cleanup is not grounds for deletion. C679 13:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oaktree b and Cloudz679. There's enough WP:RS-based coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aja Aja Tayo!

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV DonaldD23 talk to me 23:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:02, 1 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!} 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Added independent sources. Not great but the Jeju part seems to have received significant attention. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Facebook	1. "AJA AJA Tayo on Facebook". Facebook. Archived from the original on April 27, 2022.[user-generated source]
"Donny join reality show" - promotional mill news, fails WP:SIRS	2. ^ "Robi, Donny join reality show 'Aja Aja Tayo Sa Jeju', make Korea happy" . INQUIRER.net . March 10, 2021 . Retrieved May 12, 2024 .
Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS	3. ^ "Filipino reality show hosts discover real, raw Korea". koreatimes. March 15, 2019. Retrieved May 12, 2024.
Youtube, Promotional mill news, fails WP:SIRS	4. ^ ABS-CBN Entertainment . "Aja! Aja! Let's Go To Jeju Trailer" . YouTube . Retrieved March 4, 2021 .
Promotional about finale, fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ ""Ang Sa Iyo Ay Akin" finale, "Huwag Kang Mangamba" and "Aja Aja Tayo sa Jeju" will be shown first on iWantTFC" . ABS-CBN Corporation . Retrieved March 10, 2021 .
Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS	6. ^ "Donny Pangilinan proud to be part of new Filipino-Korean variety show 'Aja Aja Tayo sa Jeju'". push.abs-cbn.com. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS	7. ^ "Robi Domingo and Donny Pangilinan talk about travel and new reality show "Aja! Come on! Let's go to Jeju!"". ABS-CBN Entertainment. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS	8. ^ "Donny, Kristel, Shine, and Robi take viewers to South Korea in 'Aja! Aja! Tayo sa Jeju'". ABS-CBN Corporation. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
Promotional, fails WP:SIRS	9. ^ CC, JE (March 22, 2021). "REVIEW: Aja! Aja! Let's go to Jeju! Fun and Thrilling South Korean Adventure" . LionhearTV . Retrieved May 12, 2024 .
Promotional must see tv type article, fails WP:SIRS	10. ^ "Five reasons why Aja aja Tayo is a must see for Filipino viewers - Oppa Is Life". July 22, 2018. Retrieved May 12, 2024.

Nothing found in article or BEFORE meeting WP:SIRS.  // Timothy :: talk  12:49, 15 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!} 23:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article fails to meet the standards of WP:GNG, and the sources appear promotional in nature. Furthermore, according to WP:RSPYT, content on YouTube can’t establish notability. Similarly, Facebook can’t establish as it's user-generated. GrabUp - Talk 12:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: to call "promotional mill news, fails WP:SIRS" every source is easy. But it's also easy to open them and to see that, although not great, some cannot be described like that. However, if judged insufficient for a standalone page, a redirect List_of_TV5_(Philippine_TV_network)_original_programming#Others, where the program is listed, should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete as per nom it fails WP:GNG.Sanwalniazik (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Other than the article's creator, editors have found the level of coverage in RS to be lacking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Food For Thought (artwork)

Food For Thought (artwork) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability. I'd redirect this to the perp's page, but there is not anything about this work there. Searches throw up zip. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find one possible mention of this art piece in a G-Book but it isn't previewed. I also checked the magazines available online from the library, figuring there might be info in art magazines and journals, but nothing. I looked at the artist's article and I admit I also have doubts that they meet notability requirements. Lamona (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wanås is the leading international sculpture park [5] - any art piece exhibited there deserves a mention. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a more apt citation for that? That is a travel/promotional magazine, not an art magazine. Also, that article does not mention this work of art. Lamona (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some more links rectifying Wanås Sculpture Park as, atleast, internationally reknowned [6], [7],[8]. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you can't use the same notability reference to an artpiece almost 30-years-old but I've done what I could providing proof of this artwork's legacy albeit its growing age. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you have provided fit with the Wikipedia definition of reliable source and none mention this sculpture. I don't think this helps. Lamona (talk) 15:28, 16 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!} 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Having something in this sculpture park might help in establishing the notability of an artist with a work there but does not establish the notability of the work.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough reception to ascertain standalone notability at the moment. I checked the Swedish Mediearkivet, where a two-sentence mention in Expressen came up. "Tydligast blir det kanske i Matthew McCaslins Food for thought, där en videofilmad pastoral idyll har fått sig tillsatt gödselessens i form av halmbalar - utan att det riktigt framgår om det är de betande korna eller deras medialisering som är "poängen", för att säga det på skånska. En poäng i sig, skulle det säkert kunna hävdas - men den förefaller mig i så fall ganska trivial". This is something, although certainly not in-depth. Food For Thought is mentioned at Wanås Castle#Selection of the outdoors exhibitions which shows that almost none of the artworks have their own pages; by the way I don't trust the notion that Wanås is "the leading international sculpture park" either. Geschichte (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:TRAINWRECK Most of the pages in this multi-AfD have not been discussed, and opinion is split among the ones that have been discussed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MASX J22550681+0058396

2MASX J22550681+0058396 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

These galaxies are purely catalog entries and do not meet the astronomical object notability guidelines. User_talk:Galaxybeing has created a whole bunch of such stubs, and I'm going to request deletion of all the ones that I see without a specific secondary source that makes them even barely notable (e.g. IRAS_14348-1447 which at least has a couple of references that specifically mention it in the title).

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable, for the same reasons as above. I'll also note that just having one or more supernovae in them does not make a galaxy notable either: we're currently finding tens of thousands of supernovae per year, and when LSST comes online next year, that will increase by an order of magnitude.

MCG_-03-04-014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 3683 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 4588 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2MASX J05210136-2521450 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 3222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 1050 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 3622 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

UGC 9684 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 2816 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 3505 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 2498 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 3275 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NGC 7222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NGC 3978 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arp 60 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IC 2759 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NGC 3509 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parejkoj (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: of these objects, UGC 9684 has multiple sources (mainly about supernovae events), and thus may be notable per WP:GNG. The others were found lacking in substantial references. Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I noted, just having supernovae in it does not make a galaxy notable. UGC 9684 has an ESA press release, but I don't see any papers about the galaxy itself. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep: According to ESA press release, it is known UGC 9684 is one of the supernova producing galaxies in which SN 2020pni is quite notable. Also there is a Universe guide article for that galaxy. This article can be expended should more sources be found for UGC 9684. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. 2MASX J05210136-2521450 and 2MASX J22550681+0058396 is a luminous infrared and post starburst galaxy respectively, therefore they are notable. Both have ESA press releases and I also found secondary sources for them. As for the IC galaxy objects, I know the German wikipedia has all of the articles and therefore should be kept for future studies despite not being notable. MCG -03-04-014 is classified as a luminous galaxy and should be kept as well. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are thousands of known LIRGs, they're more numerous even than quasars ref. Same with post-starburst galaxies. Those are not inclusion criteria and do not confer notability per WP:NASTRO. Wikipedia does not and should not have an article about every galaxy in those classes. Modest Genius ^talk 12:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Universe Guide is not a reliable source. See this page. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I saw your comment, but in the case of UGC 9684 I disagreed. The notability requirements are based on satisfying WP:GNG, rather than prioritization in terms of astronomy research. Multiple supernovae events hosted by a galaxy may provide sufficient substantial coverage, particularly when combined with being the subject of a Hubble image and article. Praemonitus (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, the notability is presumed if a topic satisties the general notability guideline or any subject-notability guideline (SNG), such as WP:NASTRO. If an astronomical object satisfies any criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) it is presumed to be notable, even if it doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria. As the name suggests, it is a general guideline, not an absolute one. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you may be misinterpreting my remarks. WP:NASTRO does not override WP:GNG; it's a supplement, as it says in the lead paragraph. If an article satisfies WP:GNG, then it satisfies the notability requirements, regardless of priority to the astronomy community. Praemonitus (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I possibly misinterpreted your remark. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apart from the Hubble/ESA publication, there is significant commentary on UGC 9684 in this paper, so keep. C messier (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 2MASX J22550681+0058396. I could not find any reliable sources that specifically study or describe this galaxy, even under its alternative IDs. The references in the article are generic surveys or simulations; the only exception is the ESA press image which has only three sentences describing this galaxy. That's not enough to pass WP:NASTCRIT. I haven't looked at the other articles. Modest Genius ^talk 12:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep 2MASX J05210136-252450. I firmly believe it can be expended more since there are reliable secondary sources that mentioned about the galaxy itself. Because of this, it can possibly meet notability guidelines for astronomical objects. Galaxybeing (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll just note here that the protocol is to only post a single keep or delete comment. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a discussion, not a vote, and that is the third time you have !voted 'keep'. You can't vote multiple times, see WP:DISCUSSAFD. If reliable sources provide extensive commentary on this galaxy, please provide them here - I've tried to find them without success. Modest Genius ^talk 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually did found some sources for 2MASX J05210136-252450. The websites are located below:

  https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/520/2/2351/6957264

  https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/bs58mon/SWIFT_J0520.7-2519

  https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2010/16/aa15249-10/T2.html

  https://www.academia.edu/78698887/The_subarcsecond_mid_infrared_view_of_local_active_galactic_nuclei_I_The_N_and_Q_band_imaging_atlas

  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d49/meta

  https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/520/2/2351/6957264

  Hopefully, these sources can be useful. Galaxybeing (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is demonstrating your misunderstanding of the astronomy notability guidelines: those papers all talk about catalog sources, but there is nothing granting notability to this specific source. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of these provide any substantive commentary on this particular galaxy. Including it in a table or database, or as part of a wider sample, do not qualify for notability. Please read point 3 of WP:NASTCRIT again. Modest Genius ^talk 12:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2MASX J05210136-252450 has been in 499 different scientific papers according to SIMBAD, which is quite high (most of the other objects nominated here for deletion have less than 50). The galaxy has been the main subject of study of at least 4 papers
  • https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ef8
  • https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5df4
  • https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/126
  • https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2001/10/aa10444/aa10444.html
• So keep. C messier (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, that particular object does seem notable, though is better know by its IRAS number so should be renamed. Modest Genius ^talk 12:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  agreed User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2MASX J22550681+0058396 isn't as straight forward, but it has been included in studies with small samples and add significant commentary on the object (and there is also the ESA/Hubble page)
  • https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/439/3/2837/1104009
  • https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5f (it is mentioned as 379)
• So keep. C messier (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any sources on google. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 14:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added another block of sources to the deletion request. Assuming User:Praemonitus's argument about UGC 9684 regarding "a lot of supernovae make it notable", I'd say that at best one in ten of User:Galaxybeing's new pages (of which there are over a hundred) are notable, probably more like one in twenty. I'll also note that many of these pages include non-reliable sources as part of their pile of links (e.g. Universe Guide, Go-astronomy, In-the-sky, and cseligman). I don't know of a process for it, but I would argue that all of the new pages created by User:Galaxybeing should be deleted, and they should have to be proposed for creation based on notability (assuming User:Praemonitus argument above holds, which I still disagree with, but not strongly). - Parejkoj (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parejkoj: This deletion request is a bit of a mess. I would nominate objects (if nominate at all) that have been the subject of Hubble/ESA picture of the week separately, and so I would NGC objects. C messier (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 2MASX J05210136-252450, since it has been the subject of many non-trivial published works, hence satisfying the third criterion of the notability guidelines for astronomical objects. The name should be changed to IRAS 05189–2524, since it is the commonly-used name in scientific articles. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite good idea. I picked up your point and changed the name to what you mentioned. Also I expended the article with a few more sources. Thanks for the name change. Galaxybeing (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: MCG -03-04-014 (aka IRAS F01076-1707) is a bit borderline. There is the Hubble/ESA page and it has been included in low volume galaxy studies. From what I found this one has the most commentary on the object. --C messier (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NGC 3509 has been included in some low volume galaxy studies. Three offer significant commentary on the object

• https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/522782/fulltext/
• https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/379676/fulltext/
• https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1983AJ.....88..583H

So keep. C messier (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so three keeps from you then? Praemonitus (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four, UGC 9684, NGC 3509, 2MASX J22550681+0058396, and 2MASX J05210136-252450. Neutral about MCG -03-04-014. C messier (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Non-notable NGC objects can be redirected to their entries in the List of NGC objects instead of being deleted. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  sure User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 14:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I see opinions on two different articles but there are 17 included in this bundled nomination. I suggest this nomination is withdrawn and individual AFDs are started or, at least smaller bundles of very similar articles. With only 1 or 2 articles soliciting comments, this is likely to close as No consensus for the entire bundle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to do that, but given the large number of these new articles, it's a pain to sort them into bundles. I don't know if there's a tool that would make it easier than my manual "copy AFD templates and summaries across pages" process that I used for this one, but doing that for all of the >100 articles would be very slow. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep them all and let God sort them out. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And that means...what, exactly? Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  what do you mean User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 21:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sadustu Tau and Hamterous1: It's a reference to Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Randy Kryn is (likely) agreeing with Liz's suggestion to close this nomination and handle each article individually. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Galaxybeing, could you please say something about how you are creating these articles, and how you are choosing objects to make pages for? It looks like you've made over 20 new articles in the past week, many of which have the same problems I listed above (all of your new IC pages, for example). Those new IC articles are just stubs that summarize their catalog entries, and I would add all of them to a deletion request like this one. How are you pulling together that summary information so quickly? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TRAINWRECK per Liz and Randy Kryn, since I can clearly see split opinion upon different articles in that list of 17 astronomical articles. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomlab

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

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

Quick check finds no significant coverage on the company that passes WP:ORGIND. A record label is a business/company, therefore it's expected to pass NCORP for it to kept. Graywalls (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 8 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!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I hate to say it because I'm a fan of some of their artists, but I can't find anything other than sites selling records and completely unrelated hits for a Matlab package. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per above TheWikiToby (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Abuseridze

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

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

Shinadamina (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Georgia (country). Shinadamina (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Nomination: All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's clear no WP:BEFORE has been done on this one. Other language Wikipedia's have WP:GNG passing sources. There is lots of coverage of his election or non-election as president of Georgia rugby, plus there's coverage of his extensive career (3 World Cups, over 80 caps for a reasonable rugby nation and European career). WP:NOTCLEANUP in action here also. Just because the article is not sourced, doesn't mean it's a reason for deletion as it looks to be clear that sourcing exists, even in the most simple of searches. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I did search for other sources and when doing so, I did not see significant coverage. There is this article, but it is brief. Do you see anything else? If so, please post the links or add to the article. Shinadamina (talk) 08:13, 13 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!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Ignoring the back-and-forth accusations of COI/SPA, the arguments on the Delete side are based more on source analysis and guidelines, not to mention being decisively more numerous than the Keep !votes. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka

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

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: OP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY KEEP: I'm curious how someone who someone hasn't been active on WP suddenly pops ups after four years of silence to nominate this BLP for deletion and throwing around accusations that I'm a paid editor and causing a stir about my editing behavior too. BTW, this BLP isn't promotional like they're saying over at WP:COIN. Feels like some undercover agents got activated once I started calling out Pakistani UPEs. I feel like this should be WP:SK because I'm not buying the editor's intentions. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Saqib I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. You acted like you owned the page, which makes me think that you and Aanuarif have an unreported financial interest in promoting Waqar Zaka, Editors do not own articles and stop attacking other editors based on your assupusons, it will not save the article, as you defended in second nomation here There is ongoing discussion on COIN about this, Regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved.  So let it be reviewed by the community.

  And the nature of your edits look you may have conflicts of interest,  you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Lkomdis (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO from his own BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else.
  Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis. If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).

  I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles. Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass GNG notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A show host is not the same as a show creator: we do not automatically consider star actors to be "creators" of the works they appear in, that status is reserved for the writers/directors. The "role" in that guideline is not referring to an acting role. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  JoelleJay, So, like I mentioned earlier, he was the guy behind a bunch of reality TV shows which were very popular, doing everything from producing to directing. Take "Living on the Edge" for example, that youth reality show that was a big deal in Pakistan—he was the executive producer there per this RS. Plus, per the same DAWN piece, he wore many hats at The Musik, directing and producing. He was the director of BOL Champions season 1 per this and also co-produced Babylicious - while this states Waqar Zaka is the pioneer of the reality show called Desi Kuryian So yeah, he ticks off a bunch of the criteria for being NCREATIVE, including being a NDirector and NProducer. While BBC calls him a "social media sensations" in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - meets WP: Notability (person). The subject is a controversial and popular social media personality and politician. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

• Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to inadequate independent sources in the article, and nothing new of note offered at this AfD. Subject certainly seems to have been a part of significant cultural pieces but the creation or major role required for WP:CREATIVE hasn't been demonstrated. Non-creative endeavors, like the criminal history and cryptocurrency activities aren't sufficient to pass notability under GNG or other standards. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oblivy, What do you mean by "inadequate independent sources"? I can't find any reference that isn't independent of the subject. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is the 3rd AFD on this article and I'd like to see a clearer consensus based on policy and the quality of sources (specific comments are more helpful than generalizations).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source Assessment Analysis

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://jp.reuters.com/article/crypto-currency-pakistan/pakistan-moves-to-bring-cryptocurrency-boom-out-of-the-dark-idUSL4N2MY2QY/		according to WP:RSP, Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable, Probably organic source	~	~ Partial
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-56991694	in Urdu language	BBC is renowned to be reliable		✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20190412131604/https://dailytimes.com.pk/375662/waqar-zaka-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-help-pakistan-pay-off-its-debts/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1104219	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka	?	? mere interview		✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/507331/i-am-giving-pakistanis-a-platform-to-vent-their-frustrations-waqar-zaka/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/879155/i-am-the-reason-why-some-people-now-rule-the-entertainment-industry-waqar-zaka/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/04/10/waqar-zakas-show-champions-remain-suspended-ihc-rules/	?	?	Not opening, dead link	✘ No
https://propakistani.pk/lens/#google_vignette	advert site			✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1125800	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20200413074930/https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2020/04/lewd-headphone-show-designed-to-help-audience-insists-waqar-zaka/	~	? archived, Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1030194-heres-what-weve-gathered-from-the-four-corners-of-the-world		Probably paid promotion	~	✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2448056/waqar-zaka-tried-to-sabotage-my-position-as-a-morning-show-host-nida-yasir	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1148194/waqar-zaka-claps-back-at-nida-yasirs-allegations/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/529514/waqar-zaka-hopes-to-go-from-cobra-to-constituency/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/837229/waqar-zaka-says-line-pe-ajao/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://ecp.gov.pk/Documents/Downloads/General%20Election%202013/Detailed%20Gazzette/Notification%20-%20National%20Assembly.pdf		Non existent pdf		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20181128123043/https://www.aaj.tv/2013/04/main-banoonga-minister-waqar-zaka-strives-to-contest-elections/	Not opening.. Dead link	Not opening.. Dead link	?	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190419213558/https://www.samaa.tv/lifeandstyle/2019/04/we-may-never-see-waqar-zaka-on-tv-again/	?	? archived	?	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20190530064649/http://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/493945-Waqar-Zaka-seeks-apology-nation-destroying-young-minds/		archived site	~	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/396309-arrese		Probably paid press	~	✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/467143-Waqar-Zaka-arrested-over-possessing-sheesha-denies-consuming-alcohol	?	Link not opening	~	✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873698-solo-champion-waqar-zaka-wins-solo-trader-round-of-bitcoin-world-cup	?	?	~ Probably paid promotion	? Unknown
https://www.samaa.tv/20873569-bitcoin-world-cup-waqar-zaka-eyes-victory-ranks-3-among-2-500-traders	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.brecorder.com/	?	Probably paid promotion	~	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727704	?	? Probably Paid press	~	? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1027586-fia-s-final-charge-sheet-accuses-waqar-zaka-of-luring-public-into-illegal-cryptocurrency-trade		Probably paid press	~	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1731030	?	? Probably paid press	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/1735220	?	? Probably paid press	~	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Comment of the Source analysis': I took out time to carry out source assement for all the 29 sources used. From the above, I found that only two WP:RS (Reuters and BBC Urdu) featured the subject partially. The rest of the sources used were mostly unknown and unreliable. They don't qualify as WP:RS. They all contain Paid press which either promote the subject overly or discredit the subject. I therefore conclude that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are not met by any means. Cheers everyone! Maltuguom (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maltuguom, I've to disagree with your assessment because you've labeled even those news stories that were critical of Waqar Zaka as "paid.". I'm just curious about why SPAs (like you and Lkomdis (talk · contribs) are showing a lot of interest in this AfD and who seem to only want this BLP deleted. I hope the closing admin will take into account that this isn't solely about WP:GNG but also about WP:NCREATIVE criteria and also probably think about taking SPA comments into account, especially since you haven't been in an AfD since 2020. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saqib,My dear, what I did is an unbiased source assessment in line with Wikipedia policy. I am not supporting any side. The source assessment is very clear and unbiased. Take a look at it critically and at my comment. It's left for the admin to decide. I didn't vote "delete" nor "Keep". It's just a clear unbiased assesment based on wikipedia policy of WP:GNG. Most of the sources fail WP:RS. This is very clear! Likely paid promotions both for and against the subject. Why can't we see those articles on reliable WP:RS??.

Mind you! I have participated in AFD n few occassions in the past. I stopped because of the un-encouraging attitidue of editors like you. Why do you add me to an SPI simply because I did what is right and unbiased? I am not in any way linked to that SPI. My account is not a sleeper. I edit when I am free. I came on this to access the sources in line with the wikipedia policy.

Why are you bent on attacking every single vote or comment? It's uncalled for my dear. Let's have a rethink. Allow the admin to take a decision in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltuguom, You got it wrong in your assessment. Those DAWN news stories aren't unreliable or paid for. In fact, they're critical of the subject. And BBC Urdu didn't just partially feature the subject; they gave it significant coverage, contrary to what you claimed. Anyway, like I said, the BLP should be evaluated based on WP:NCREATIVE because the subject has played major roles in numerous TV shows and a film. And yeah, I filed an SPI because I think there might be some puppetry going on here. It is indeed fishy that an account that hasn't been active in AfD since 2020 suddenly pops up out of nowhere to throw in their 2cents on this AfD, especially when this AfD was originally initiated by a blocked sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, the source analysis is clear on BBC and Reuters. Those are the only two WP:RS. BBC featured the subject significantly. Check the table well. The subject and his cronies used DOWN and other unreliable sources to churn out paid promotions. His enemies also used same to launch attacks on him. I saw all of that by reading through each of the sources. A few of the sources are dead links. Why can't both parties used BBC, Deadline, and other WP:RS. TAside from the BBC, there are no other organic sources cited. Also nothing stops me from participating in several AFD's all through this period just to cover up as most guys do. I won't that. It's not needed. I simply being honest and unbiased. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're labelling all Pakistani sources, even the big ones like DAWN and Express Tribune, as unreliable. It's kinda funny, because those are like, the most respected ones in Pakistan. Do you have any proof they're paid? And even if they are, like, who cares? As long as our BLP isn't turning into a PROMO, we're good to go. And even if some links are dead, we can always hit up the Wayback Machine to bring them back to life. And lastly, we're not here to judge based on GNG, but NCREATIVE, and this dude totally fits the bill. Whether the coverage is paid or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with @JoelleJay that a showing that the person was the creator or played a major role in the creation of significant works is needed. That needs to be shown with reliable sources. @Saqib can you point to sources where those two elements - significance of the work, and major role in creation -- are asserted by an independent source? I asked before but you demurred.

GNG is indicated because of WP:BASIC, unless you only want to rely on NCREATIVE (in which case, see my previous paragraph).

With respect to your comments to @Maltuguom, if sources are paid-for they aren't independent and don't count towards WP:BASIC. I see no reason we would accept non-independent sources for WP:NCREATIVE especially considering that WP:RS requires independence (Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). While I disagree with much of the above source analysis, simply hand-waving away lack of independence doesn't mean "we're good to go." As an experienced editor currently participating in a lot of deletion discussions, I assume you know this, so I'm not sure what's motivating the above comment. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've put together a table listing some of the TV shows directed, produced, created, and hosted by the subject. These are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list and I've made sure to cite independent, RS to back up the information. Now, some of these shows have WP articles already, indicating their noteworthiness, while others, like Living on the Edge don't yet have articles. However, just because they don't have articles doesn't mean they aren't significant works. For instance, "Living on the Edge" was Pakistan's most popular reality show per DAWN as well the Express Tribune, and substantial financial success, as reported by The Nation.

Love him or hate him, Waqar clearly meets the NDIRECTOR and/or NPRODUCER. Serena Menon of the Hindustan Times even refers to him as a Pakistani pop sensation, and highlighting Waqar's hosting skills being compared to those of India's Raghu Ram so, if Raghu Ram qualifies for a WP BLP, why not Waqar? And for what it's worth, Zaka is also recognized as a "social media sensations in Pakistan" by BBC. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He was the host of some non notable shows in the past. Shows are lacking notability not because they dont have wikipidea page but because there is insufficient coverage on google. The available coverage about him is also limited, often focusing on crypto currency activites. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're thinking this vote is payback just because I nominated some pages for deletion that were made by UPEs. Because seriously, how can you just brush off those reliable sources that clearly say he was the creator, director or producer of those shows I mentioned in the table and that there's not enough coverage about Zaka's shows. Seriously? Every single one of his shows is all over legit sources. Like, come on! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this statement from The Wire says it all "Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial."

I'll be honest, I don't have any sense of how important Living on the Edge is. The rest of it seems clearly to fail on "significant". Note that #1 is an interview which should get low or no weight.

@Saqib considering WP:AGF do you perhaps want to strike your comment about payback? Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not backing down from what I said. It's super obvious if one check out Libraa2019 involvement in AfDs and why they voted to delete here. It's like a total retaliation vote.This editor is all over creating and editing bios of not-so-famous actors, but they voted to delete this BLP just because I said keep. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite numerous warnings, you are contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any single evidence, i will report you to admin for this. Retaliation is what you are doing and i am unable to understand what is your motive behind insulting me everytime. Being a Pakistani editor with interest in Entertainment, i have all the rights to participate in Pakistani related article's AFD and share my opinion. As far as my creations are concerned, they have already kept in AfD because community is thinking they are notable [9]. You are not an admin to decide whether the BLP is notable or not. All you can do is respect others opinion which is not that much hard, dont you think? Libraa2019 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, Could you please share here diffs if I recently accused you of being a UPE or even a sock? This SPI was filed by someone else, not me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You endorsed that SPI by connecting me with another user without any solid evidence [10], even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" [11], you accused me of socking on commons without any evidence. You initiated AFD's by calling me UPE [12] [13], all of my creations are nominated by you with similar statements & i am unable to understand your behaviour as many editors have told you that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts [14], [15], [16], [17] [18] but you objected all of them and you want yourself to be proven correct everytime. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, close to the borderline of WP:GNG, fails WP:NCREATIVE per the sources available and before search results. I agree with the source analysis to a high extent but I have a little bit of doubt as to how all the national media platforms listed are not reliable. What I found was that those specific articles from some of the sources are unreliable because some appear as PR or paid for articles. The BBC and Reuters articles are reliable but not enough to establish clear cut notability. The publisher of this [19] may be reliable but the specific article cited here is unreliable because it is an interview and the headline itself says it all “Chit Chat Meet Waqar Zaka”. This [20] is a mere passing mention of the subject. This [21] and this [22] appear organic but I suspect a PR material pretending to be an organic press article. These two sources are published in two different newspapers but their completely same from byline to headline and the body of the article. My suspicion is particularly heighted for the fact that most news outlets named The Wire are always news agencies distributing PR materials. The date of publication of the article in Herald shows Updated 10 November 2018 while at the bottom it say the article was first published in June 2017 Issue. Then it was published in The Wire on 13 January 2018. This may be a PR campaign. This [23] seems to be a paid press announcing the release of the film, it was an objective review of the film it would have been clear where this source stands. This [24] is a clear sponsored post instructing people interested in his show to download an app of the sponsors of the program. These [25] [26] sources only gave passing mentions are simply in the article populate it. Several links seem dead and can’t be accessed for an assessment. For the trial, it does not seem to be a serious trial because the before search did not turn up strong media coverage expect of a person possibly being tried by the state. Using a few sources about the trial may mean that subjects who are charged for all kind of offences and received two or media coverage may want to use that for their qualification for a Wikipedia page. Piscili (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piscili, I repeat this shouldn't be judged on GNG but on the NDIRECTOR / NPRODUCER. And by the way, I'm still wondering why there's a bunch of SPAs throwing in their delete votes on this AfD. You've only been in three AfDs since you joined WP. What drew you to this one? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you make 100 AFD votes at once when you started voting (commenting) in AFD? I have only three or four AFD comments but slowly it will build up to a great number. And I take my time to analyse sources I do not want to be commenting Delete per nom.. Why attacking me for my comment? In the past couple of weeks I was active in Recent Changes Patrol and now I am expanding to other parts of this collaborative work. But even IP address can comment in AFD why can't I comment too? Why is AFD so toxic? Piscili (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Piscili, I'm not the only one with suspicions about you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I have made my comments and only closing admins will decide the merit of my comment. I should be able to freely comment in any AFD I chose to but what you are doing now is intimidation for whatever reason best known to you. I am here to help uphold the editorial guidelines not to please any one. If you disagree with my critical analysis of sources so be it. Only admins are the judges here if they decide otherwise in this AFD I am fine with it. That will be a learning curve for me. Piscili (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The most recent source assessment does a good job of highlighting the PROMO issues I have with the sources. Even if we consider his being director of a couple shows as sufficient for NCREATIVE--which I don't--that is still only a presumption of notability, while per N (WHYN) establishing notability requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS even for subjects that pass SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoelleJay, I disagree with @Maltuguom's source assessment. They labeled every single source except, BBC and Reuters, as unreliable and paid, even though most of the coverage was critical of the subject, like in these examples: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. From what I understand, subjects are considered notable if they are directors, producers, or even if they have significant roles (incliding creators) in TV shows. This guy meets all those criteria. I'm curious why we have BLPs on less famous Pakistani actors but not for someone who is a popular, albeit controversial, TV figure in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So every director and producer is notable just because they produce or direct just a few movies? It is deeper than you think. There must be significant coverage to meet those notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludamane, Why not? This section states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Such as The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per source analysis to which I have nothing much to add. This is a non notable subject and should wait until such a time when notability meets at least WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Articled contains so much unreliable sources. Ludamane (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's another sleeper account joining the AFDs for the first time, i guess! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have taken ownership of this AFD otherwise why throwing accusation at every editor that comment in this AFD? I have read countless AFD discussions with lengthy threads more than this particular one but never have I seen single editor being uncivil in their discussion as you do here. This is a non-notable subject and majority opinion show that this subject does not meet any notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not implying that everyone here is a sleeper account, but it's worrisome that some including you who've never engaged in AfDs before are suddenly joining in, especially when this AfD itself was initiated by a sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not check who initiated this AFD and my position here is based on the unreliable sources in this article. Subject is not notable and there is no need wasting so much time and energy on this. Ludamane (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't seem logical to label respected Pakistani publications like DAWN and The Express Tribune as unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article from the DAWN is a very short interview and that's mostly categorised under primary sources more so that that interview was very trivial and did not discuss any serious issue of much public interest Ludamane (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saqib, please stop. You opened a SPI about 2 users who !voted Delete, not sure it was appropriate nor wether it will be endorsed but that should be enough. Assume good faith and consider NOT commenting on every !vote that does not go your way. I generally don't comment on behaviour issues unless I am personally involved, but your comments do not seem to be made in a constructive spirit (and that is an understatement, believe me). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We've got over 6 editors voting for deletion here, but I've only filed SPI on 3 of them, not all. My worries are totally legit. These 3 sleeper accounts, never even glanced at Pakistani pages before, NOR ever participated in AfDs before. Anyway, I'm throwing in the towel on this one. Don't really care if this BLP sticks around or not, but I'm still scratching my head over why someone's going all out to axe this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Piscili and Ludamane are not "sleeper" accounts and they had participated in AfDs before. I have no time to comment anymore on the issue, sorry. Still, I'm inviting you again to change your approach. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mushy Yank, Sure, I'm stepping back from this now. But before I bow out, I've to say that this is seriously risky. Anyone could get a BLP wiped out like this, even if the subject clearly meet WP:N. I dropped a note on your tp explaining that this subject isn't just some ROTM figure in Pakistan. He's controversial, sure, but undeniably popular and gets loads of press coverage in RS. And here's an interesting tidbit: even Jimmy Wales himself once edited this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mushy Yank, you need to see this [27] [28] its the hatred i received just for sharing my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival

Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It exists, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, Judaism, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found this from a local publication. The Buffalo News article from 2018 and the rest of the articles under the tag. And there's more from this publication when you go below the article that's not from the link with the tag. And there's from Buffalo Rising. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per @WikiCleanerMan, meets WP:N. FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't arguing that it should be kept, but there are sources out there. It should just be added. But Google searching, you can find more from both of these publications for some reason not on their website. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets GNG [29], [30], a Google search showed more in addition to the above.  // Timothy :: talk  16:37, 14 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!} 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Ali Khan

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

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actress created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Under the general notability guideline, it's not the perceived prestige, in the eyes of us as editors, of a film, show, or or performer (which is subjective; e. g., one of the linked sources calls Khan a prolific actor) that confers notability; rather, notability comes from coverage in secondary sources. The article already cites sources that focus on Khan (e. g. [31], [32], [33]). I noticed other hits when I keyword-searched with Google, and this is just considering English language sources without getting into the probability of other language sources. By way of aside, the text of this AfD's OP is nearly identical to another AfD Saqib nominated on the same day. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we evaluating based on policy WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR or merely on some press coverage and appearances in dramas? No one is questioning her status as an actor, as she has indeed appeared in dramas. However, the crucial question is whether she has had significant roles. I don't see that. Now one might question why she receives press coverage if she doesn't have significant roles. It's important to note that national news channels such as ARY, GEO and others, are also associated with the production and promotion of these dramas, so they often invite the cast onto their TV shows, resulting in news articles in their news websites based on these TV appearances. While ARY news story may label her a prolific actor, this alone doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Additionally, we should be cautious about relying on the websites of Pakistani national news channels, as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and regularly publish sensational and tabloid-like content for increased traffic. As far I can see coverage in Urdu language, while available, also tends to lean towards gossip and sensationalism. And the identical text across my AfD nominations shouldn't be an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You brought up WP:NEWSORGINDIA; however, that subsection of WP:RSP specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight, etc. The consensus isn't about all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please refer to this discussion - commencing from the comment by ActivelyDisinterested at 16:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC). —Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ActivelyDisinterested's advice to be cautious about ProPakistan.pk is duly noted, but their comment doesn't seem to be about all news publications in Pakistan, and Sheriff contested the characterizations of even just ProPakistan.pk. Three editors who seem to have brought three different opinions doesn't seem like a ringing consensus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hydrangeans, OK - I do not want to delve into the details of what constitutes a RS or not, as this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. Let's keep it simple. so here are my final thoughts. As we can see, the actor clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG because it requires sig/in-depth coverage. And if look at this from the perspective of NACTOR, the actor only had a lead role in one TV show, Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) and in the rest of the shows, she only played MINOR roles. I deleted some because they were either based on WP:OR or cited using clearly unreliable sources that can't even be used for WP:V purposes. So, as I mentioned, the actor had a lead role in " Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) but when one does a Google search, there is no sig/ in-depth coverage about this show, indicating that it is not a significant work. Yes, it has a WP article, but so do hundreds of other TV shows created by UPEs. However, this show clearly does not meet the threshold of significance, which means the subject fails to meet NACTOR, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant. If you still like, I am happy to discuss further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight." The rule can be applied to the Indian subcontinent and all media therein. Note that a lot of media in one country is served in other countries in that are. A border does not negate the fact that the region has a history of paid media such as these. The "certain kinds of articles" apply and the "certain publications" are only examples. Creating a listing of ALL publications that do so would be exhaustive. These are just examples and we need to use common sense when applying the rule. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hiba's is a notable actress and she is recently working in drama Shiddat and Rah-e-Junoon.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support your claims. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on general notability. The AfD appears to be partially motivated by some personal gripe Saqib has with the article's original creator. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No I don't have any issues with the person who created the page. But could you please share some coverage that fits WP:GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet and little policy-based opinions stated in this discussion. Yes, there have been run-ins between editors in this subject area but can this discussion focus on the merits of this standalone article and not on the perceived motivations of any or all discussion participants? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Source are interviews, based on what she says or brief mentions. The other issue is when I look at the articles about the shows listed in the filmography to see if any sources have info about Khan, I am finding those articles are also poorly sourced. For example, the sources used for Kitni Girhain Baaki Hain are not about the show and are only brief mentions. That's just one but I looked at a few. If anyone comes up with a couple RS that has in-depth coverage about Khan, please ping me. S0091 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per my check, I searched for sources with in-depth coverage of the subject but found only interviews with some passing mentions, which can't establish notability at all as per WP:GNG. She also fails WP:NACTOR as she did not have a significant role in a notable film. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - For someone with so many listed roles, I initially assumed there would be a ton of references available. However, there are not. And, the ones that do exist simply verify roles but do not add up to significant coverage. They are interviews, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Note that WP:NACTOR only presumes notability for certain roles, but does not guarantee notability. It is still based on sourcing. Here are the references currently on the page:

The News International, an interview which is not considered independent.

ARY News, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA but it does include a video of an interview she gave. Unfortunately, it is still an interview and the information is not considered indepdent.

Dawn, mentions her as part of the cast. Verifies role but verifiability is not notability.

ARY News, same as the ARY News assessment above.

City 42, announcement of her marriage. It does say she changed her name but searching that name found no references suitable to show notability.

Dawn, another one that mentions her name to verify a role, but does not talk about her outside of that. Brief mention only.

Daily Times, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA, but even if disputed, it still only verifies a role. Her name is mentioned one time. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acsess Business Academy

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

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

Not notable, possibly defunct business school. The "Official Site" link at the bottom of the article points to an archived copy because the original URL is dead. A Google search for "Acsess Business Academy" returns only 23 results: this article, mirrors of this article, related Wikipedia pages (Category:Business schools in South Africa, Category:Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles), and a handful of résumés and homework assignments that refer to the school. A Google search for "Access Business Academy" is similarly unfruitful, with only 14 results. —Bkell (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribalism and regionalism in Zimbabwe

Tribalism and regionalism in Zimbabwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This topic is pretty certainly notable but I think this calls for WP:TNT. On such a sensitive and contentious topic we do not serve our readers properly by having a mishmash of unsourced statements, huge gaps and random factoids. Most of the sources cited do not deal with the stated topic as a whole but with individual incidents that the creator is weaving together to tell a larger but often apparently OR story. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. This is very close to TNT. Is there anything that can be done that can save it? Bearian (talk) 18:39, 14 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!} 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of South Park characters#Clyde Donovan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Donovan

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

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

Non notable character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHAR. List of South Park characters already exists. Previous merge requests on the talk page rely on WP:ITSIMPORTANT. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 9 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!} 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of South Park characters#Clyde Donovan, nothing found that shows this character meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth; unneeded fancrufty CFORK of target.  // Timothy :: talk  15:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• *Redirect to List of South Park characters#Clyde Donovan for reasons note above. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I am interpreting the course of discussion as having 2 editors making reasoned arguments for keep, 1 making a reasoned argument for deletion, and nominator making reasoned pivots between mostly delete-oriented arguments and a "keep for now" view (which itself seems almost like a !vote for no consensus outright). I assigned no weight to the final keep !vote with an incomprehensible rationale. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform

World Anti-Imperialist Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. Despite the impression given by having 21 references, there is zero independent coverage of the orgaanization much less GNG coverage. They are ostensibly a communist organization but their main thing seems to be that Russia's war in Ukraine is just and a struggle against imperialism. Of the 21 references, 7 are flatly themselves (either their website or a copy of a speech they gave) 1 is a YouTube video of an interview of one of their people which is basically another speech, 3 don't even mention them, 3 give a very brief mention of them and 7 are criticisms of them by communist organizations. I also could not find any real sources on them, and I looked harder than usual. The article is basically sourced to themselves but then does mention the criticisms. So no real sources on them means no wp:notability from which to build an article. If there were actual sources, this might be an article worth having....for example they might reveal that this is some type of a Russia-created ploy which is trying to dupe communist organizations. But right now there is zero independent coverage of them in sources. Interestingly the organization's website has no "about us" or "our history" section, no contact info (address, phone number etc.) except a gmail email address. It's a stretch to even call it "sourced to themselves" because the "about self" info in the article (eg when it was founded) is not even on their website. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Another editor has added additional references. Some other references are newspapers and news sites, admittedly biased ones. including TASS. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the new references. Nothing new regarding the main issue, still no independent coverage of the organization much less GNG coverage. I actually WANT that coverage to be found and thus for the article to exist. There are lots of critiques of them and of their positions by communist organizations. Maybe that's enough to keep via WP:IAR North8000 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lack of independent, non-partisan coverage of the subject of this article. Although there is certainly controversy among communists over the ideological stances of this organization, this is of little relevance to readers who are not communists or otherwise familiar with the ideological positions of this group. Further, this organization is more-or-less an ideological extension of the CPGB-ML, so any criticism that does or will exist from third-parties would likely be more focused on that particular party or any other major member parties. SociusMono1976 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

The presence of criticisms by other communist organizations suggests a level of engagement within a specific community or ideological sphere that could warrant further examination. These criticisms from within the community provide context and demonstrate that the organization has sparked discussion and controversy, which is a form of coverage and recognition. While some editors question the sources of the critiques, this is not uncommon in the coverage of niche or emerging political movements, especially those with a specific ideological leaning. The inclusion of external criticisms — even if from ideologically aligned groups — does serve to broaden the discussion about the platform beyond its self-representation. Additionally, the fact that these external sources bother to critique the organization lends weight to its relevance in its sphere. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not strictly require that all articles at all times must have extensive media coverage. For niche political organizations, the requirement can be met through significant coverage in specialized publications or through the impact demonstrated in inter-group communications and critiques. Wikipedia's goal is to provide a comprehensive database of knowledge that includes all verifiable perspectives, including those from smaller or less mainstream entities. The existence of an article on a potentially lesser-known but ideologically significant organization like the World Anti-Imperialist Platform contributes to this goal. The community has a strong preference for improving articles rather than deleting them when possible. If the current references are deemed insufficient, the appropriate response would be to tag the article for needing additional citations from independent sources, rather than outright deletion. The inclusion of ruling political parties from countries like Venezuela, Guinea-Bissau, and North Macedonia elevates the organization's political significance. These countries' involvement is not only a testament to the platform's influence but also to its relevance in international politics. This kind of international collaboration among ruling parties inherently suggests a level of notability that deserves recognition and documentation on Wikipedia. The participation of such significant political entities justifies an argument for the preservation and further development of the article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability do not strictly require exhaustive coverage in mainstream media if the subject can be demonstrated to have significant impact or involvement by notable entities. The involvement of ruling parties should be considered a form of significant coverage. The organization’s connections to countries with notable geopolitical profiles—especially Venezuela, known for its significant international political interactions—underscore the importance of the platform in understanding global geopolitical dynamics. This aspect alone provides a substantial basis for keeping the article, as it serves as a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding international alignments and ideological conflicts. Deleting or undermining the presence of such an article could result in a significant gap in the available information about a notable international coalition that influences political opinions and actions. It is crucial for Wikipedia to represent such entities accurately and comprehensively to fulfill its mission as an encyclopedia that covers the full spectrum of human knowledge. Rather than deletion, this situation presents a clear opportunity for improvement. Encouraging contributors to seek additional independent secondary sources that discuss the platform's activities and influence could enhance the article's quality and reliability. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutrality while ensuring that significant political entities are appropriately represented. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds on this. Even if it is just a mysterious front organization for Russian operatives (which is my current best guess it is and the Greek Communist party seems to hint at [34] ) then perhaps it would be good to have an article if only to eventually expose it. But to build an article we need sources to build it from and we basically have zero sources about this mysterious organization. We have them talking about themselves, we have communist organizations critiquing their stances and a few short "we attended an event of theirs" sources. The WP:notability requirment basically is "we have sources which cover the subject". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you mention that. The primary challenge with the subject material is that it’s a supranational organization composed mainly of communist parties. It’s not a centralized entity but rather a congress of 50 parties and organizations, multiple of which form or take part in the governments of their respective countries. Supranational organizations often do not make headlines, as evidenced by the noticeable lack of notable sources in the list of Political international articles. Among the notable articles covering the platform that I’ve found, I can’t use them as they are from Russia Today or other sources deemed less reliable by Wikipedia. This highlights a broader issue of sourcing when it comes to international and especially non-Western political movements. The absence of coverage in mainstream Western media should not be a default barrier to notability, particularly when the subject has a significant impact on the political or ideological landscape of multiple countries. Another issue with this organization is that it includes only a few English-speaking organizations, which explains why outlets like MSNBC, CNN, etc. have not covered it. However, this does not inherently diminish its notability or significance. The substantial opposition to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP) from other parties underscores its notability. As you mentioned the Communist Party of Greece, it's also worth noting the emerging split in the international communist context between KKE-aligned anti-Russian parties and pro-Russian WAP parties, a division that should be crucial to document. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm of two minds of this.....actually I sort of want this article to exist. But let me play devil's advocate on critiquing your argument. It is a mysterious organization which has gotten some communist organizations so declare thermselves members or attend their conferences. You speak as if it is some organization consisting of those members, but there is no evidence or coverage of it really being that. There is zero evidence/coverage of it being a real organization governed by those members. Even on their own website, there is nothing indicating that it is an actual organization. No leaders or officers, no mechanism of how it is governed or how the participants play into that governance. So how are we to cover this entity with absolutely zero independent coverage of it as an entity? North8000 (talk) 23:41, 10 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!} 23:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we strip out or reword that areas where they have been used as a source on themselves this would become an edge case keep-able article, waiting for coverage of the organization per se by independent sources. I'll try that. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find that that would be one of the best possible solution regarding this article Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try that and we'll see where/how this goes. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be in favor of at least temporarily keeping this article, maybe on an WP:IAR basis regarding GNG notability. I did some editing to more clearly identify self-described material as such. It probably is still distorted in some sense in that it has undue stuff in it. For example, if a few representatives marched in a parade, such gets a few sentences in the article. Even if this organization is just a Russian scam regarding Ukraine, this article at least gathers together the small amount of material and sources available on this arguably or possibly impactful entity. I'd probably put a summary of this AFD discussion at the talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I can make the time before Wednesday, I think adding more context behind the dissolution of the Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties and the ensuing split between the European Communist Action and WAP is important to document, and adds more context and notability to the article. Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, this article better not be deleted before then. Charles Essie (talk) 17:00, 19 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!} 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent actions by the Platform have received coverage by various independent Russian media organizations, which I have added to the article. There also seems to be at least two journal articles that cover / discuss the Platform to some extent, which I would love to access but can't ^[1][2] Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not so much inside topic of this particular international, but for now like that. Nubia86 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quatuor Habanera

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

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment found this album review here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 2 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!} 23:13, 8 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!} 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Dikhtiar

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

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 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!} 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources in the article. No GNG sources found - only sports databases. Fails WP:NSKATE. --Enos733 (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé Dépouilly

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

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, South Africa, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 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!} 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Dimitrov (figure skater)

Ivan Dimitrov (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 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!} 22:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to find any sources that would lead to a GNG pass. No sources in the article. Fails WP:NSKATE. --Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Bohren

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

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 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!} 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Boamfă

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

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:57, 14 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!} 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NSKATE. I am not finding any sources that would meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids without prejudice against selectively merging some content. There is rough consensus not to keep the article as is, and a redirect is a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating based on User:AFC Vixen's edit summary. The bid has been withdrawn, thus failing WP:GNG any relevant information can be moved to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids LouisOrr27 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. LouisOrr27 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mexico, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids is also valid. Svartner (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The same (withdrawn bid) appears to happen with South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Svartner (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids — ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say",^[1] and that "[the South Africa] bid could've won had they not withdrawn and deserves to stay as an article."^[2] The first argument ignores how said info can fit comfortably in the bid article, and the second is an unsubstantiated claim. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep – There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia, even for previous Women's World Cups. To say this bid article isn't notable is ridiculous because it was an official bid, had its own bid book and gained a lot of media attention from many publications in and outside of the US and Mexico. The Mexico–United States section on the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page is bare and has a map that is terrible and lacks any detail, which makes it virtually useless since it doesn't even display what city and stadium it is talking about, it's just arrows. When you compare the map to the one on the Mexico–United States bid page, there's no comparison. Just type in Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid on Google and you will find a plethora of articles talking about it. It couldn't be more notable if you tried. That tiny paragraph and map does not give a bid that could have won justice.

  AFC Vixen you have just criticised my opinion with an opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but the way you have written it is like you're saying my opinion isn't even valid.

  What I hate on Wikipedia is when people essentially delete history and interesting facts. This is deleting history and facts. Do not be trigger happy when deleting articles that people have put effort in. Some article can be terrible but this article is pretty good. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia" is a textbook WP:WHATABOUT argument, and there are indeed city and stadium names on the interactive map; perhaps we could add a "Click the square to enlarge" or similar phrasing to the caption to make that clearer to readers. Again, there just isn't enough content here to justify a WP:SPINOUT from 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids, and it can easily fit there instead. I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of "deleting history and facts" either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While the map is slightly better than I thought, It's still way worst than the one on the Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid page. Also you took one part of my detailed reply which makes many valid points and think you have proven a point by only talking about one tiny aspect of my long reply. You didn't talk about my Google argument, the bid book argument or even the media attention argument. You talked about the only thing that you thought you could make an argument on. You are trying to invalidate my opinion by saying buzz words like unsubstantiated and put me down which I don't respect. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Make arguments with absolutely no facts and put up links and write it like you are better than the other person.

  Let's take the Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics for example, a withdrawn bid that is very notable.

  You didn't say: "The reason why the withdrawn Budapest bid is notable and deserves to be an article but the Mexico–United States bid doesn't is because..." You are just throwing a WP:WHATABOUT argument on me and calling it a day. But that's not an argument. In my opinion, it's really unhelpful.

  I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of deleting history and facts either Personally, I think they are substantiated to an extent because you did delete info from the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page under the guise of Cleaning the article up and massively cut down on fluff, but you can do both. You seemingly can't take my opinion without putting me down. I can take your opinion, but what I can't take is people fobbing me off with Wiki links with no proper facts or points behind their argument. You have no moral high ground if you put me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But I did give you evidence. That's my point. My argument wasn't just "well other articles exist like it", I gave numerous points about how the article deserves to stay on its on own merit and all you did was throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Mexico–United States 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Given that the same bid is just being moved to a later edition, it makes more sense to just keep the same article and modify it as needed. Note that the 2027 bid was withdrawn very very late in the process, so there would have been enough coverage for it to have a separate article at some point. SounderBruce 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This idea is something that I have thought about as well. This could work too. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move per SounderBruce. Everything still seems relevant and notable, just pushed back. -2pou (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above per Svartner. GiantSnowman 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map. I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment Just looking at references in the article, I don't see the sources that justify keeping a separate article. WP:BEFORE shows a lot of articles relaying (generally with a limited amount of re-writing) a press release by the US Soccer Federation on April 29th 2024 announcing that they have withdrawn the bid for 2027 and will bid together for 2031. Similarly, there are a good number of articles relaying the announcement of the bid by US Soccer on Dec 8th 2023 and April 19th 2024. Excluding these however does not reveal many sources. One I did find is by the Washington Post : Why FIFA should look past U.S.-Mexico bid to host 2026 women's World Cup, but I would be interested in what WP:THREE sources clearly establish notability. Shazback (talk) (belated signature - following reminder by Liz below)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2017/11/7/16616540/us-soccer-president-candidates-saying-women-uswnt		? Blog published by SBNation, unknown if Stephanie Yang is a reliable matter expert	Passing mention that Carlos Cordeiro believes the US should host the 2027 world cup	✘ No
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/13/2026-world-cup-usa-mexico-canada/			Passing mention that the US Soccer federation is planning to bid for the 2027 world cup	✘ No
https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/us-soccer-now-considers-bidding-for-2031-womens-world-cup/	~ Paywalled article - appears independent, but unclear as the content is not available	? Seems to have never been addressed in the reliable sources noticeboard	? Paywalled article - the primary content based on title & lead is a tentative bid for the 2031 world cup	? Unknown
https://justwomenssports.com/ussf-bid-host-2027-2031-womens-world-cup/		? Not in the reliable sources noticeboards	Very article basically relaying multiple times a short quote from USSF president Cindy parlow Cone	✘ No
https://www.infobae.com/america/deportes/2022/06/21/mexico-buscara-ser-sede-de-la-copa-mundial-de-la-fifa-femenil/			~ Really stretching to include it as significant, at best there are two paragraphs (137 words total) that are related to a potential 2027 bid	~ Partial
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2023/04/us-soccer-and-mexican-football-federation-will-launch-joint-bid-to-cohost-2027-fifa-womens-world-cup	US Soccer Federation website			✘ No
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2023/12/us-soccer-mexican-football-federation-submit-bid-right-to-host-2027-fifa-womens-world-cup	US Soccer Federation website			✘ No
https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/390c06917bd0f7a2/original/New-Heights-WWC27-Bid-Book-USA-Mexico.pdf	Publication by the US & Mexico Soccer Federations, hosted by FIFA			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.