User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

The page is now updated at User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention. Please change links accordingly. You can still see the table below.

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC).

AfD Time to close Votes Size (bytes) Relists Score
Anabwani I of Bunyoro 19 days ago 3 6777 0 1581.65
Prateek Raj 17 days ago 4 19389 0 1344.72
The Fleeting Ends 13 days ago 0 3320 0 1338.09
Turkish Informatics Olympiad 12 days ago 0 3625 0 1326.78
Dumitru Găleșanu 12 days ago 1 3682 0 1266.5
Daigo Tanioka 11 days ago 0 2515 0 1250.03
List of Pakistani animated television series 14 days ago 3 5241 0 1248.82
List of career achievements by Stephen Curry 12 days ago 1 9469 0 1246.55
Government of Mohammad Mokhber 13 days ago 2 4248 0 1232.41
Miyu Takahashi 11 days ago 1 4401 0 1200.36
Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (2nd nomination) 13 days ago 2 8671 0 1186.56
Tongan National Rugby League 13 days ago 3 9101 0 1170.8
Workers Vanguard Party of Kurdistan 12 days ago 2 4411 0 1160.27
2024 Bengal Pro T20 League 14 days ago 4 15481 0 1160.2
Amel Rachedi 14 days ago 4 6198 0 1151.83
Yogacharya Govindan Nair 13 days ago 3 7148 0 1119.06
JOJ WAU 10 days ago 1 3535 0 1109.33
Nutan (Nepalese actor) 10 days ago 1 3535 0 1103.69
Mizuki Otake 11 days ago 2 3064 0 1090.46
South Africa women's national under-18 softball team 10 days ago 1 3407 0 1090.44
Josiah Akinloye 11 days ago 2 3875 0 1086.13
Bouheida 9 days ago 1 2811 0 1056.57
UPEI Student Union 9 days ago 1 4810 0 1045.85
Markíza Dajto 10 days ago 2 4601 0 1031.03
UP T20 League 9 days ago 1 3171 0 1028.26
Anabwani I of Bunyoro (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 appears to be a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. The article was created by User:Anabwani2007, whose only edits consist of creating and editing this article, as well as adding a mention of Anabwani to Omukama of Bunyoro. None of the links presently given in the article even mention Anabwani. I wasn't able to find even a mention in reliable sources either. A Ugandan newspaper, Daily Monitor, mentions him in an article, but that's it (and their list is sourced to the monarchy's website anyway, where he's similarly merely mentioned once). toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Uganda. toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep most sources on the article are self-published, however per WP:MONARCH he is considered automatically notable as a sovereign ruler. Azarctic (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    Well, the issue is, I'm not sure if he's even real (I haven't seen a mention of him predating the 2010s), and even if we count that particular newspaper article as reliable (which I'm not certain that it is), the only thing we can say is that he existed, which isn't enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    In general, the Daily Monitor holds a left-leaning editorial bias and is reasonably fact-based; however, they poorly source information. The articles does really need more reliable sources for verification which is why I made my vote a weak keep. Azarctic (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep note that the source used for this was likely oral, and his being mentioned in a literate source should be enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt of him being genuine
Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The only source stems back to an honours mill that just had a half-dozen articles deleted within the last month for self-published promo. How is this any different if it’s all stemming from an interested party? —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dubious at best. Each source finds its way back to a self-published honours mill. Wikipedia is not here to boost the claims of unreferenced, unverifiable pedigrees. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: I did a search, and there does seem to be quite a few sources on the topic, so that mostly rules being a hoax. And of coarse WP:MONARCH makes the topic notable. Lordseriouspig 20:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    Could you link some of those sources? toweli (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If sources exist, add some to the article. Just saying sources exist and not providing any, does not improve the state that the article is in. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Prateek Raj (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)

Apart from the obvious undisclosed paid editing by Pinknetwork123, a fairly new account with 20 edits, comes up with a 20000 bytes draft. It was quickly accepted by a reviewer who I believe did not properly evaluate it. At this point, the article was majorly based on primary sources. Interviews, commentaries, and his opinion pieces do not contribute towards GNG. I believe the rest are paid PR articles and there is no significant coverage of Prateek Raj in independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, Social science, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments.
    1. Edits are not at all paid. Sorry if they appear to be. Have edited Wikipedia in the past, but usually do without logging in.
    2. Subject’s recently published paper got significant media coverage (mentioned in references), which triggered me, an acquaintance, to create the article including all of his previous media coverages.
    3. Subject gained salience on D&I issues since activism on hate speech and LGBT issues.
    4. Has significant social media following.
    5. Have used credible third party sources for all information, from websites and reputed media houses that pass Wiki’s credibility check
    6. I defer judgement to editor consensus, thanks. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 10:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I want to draw everyone’s attention to Wikietiquette Article for Deletion, WP:AFDEQ, especially on the fourth point “Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.” I would recommend editors to be unbalanced and take a constructive approach here, given that it concerns a living person.
First, the claim that the article has "obvious undisclosed paid editing" is not correct, as I have already explained before. Additionally, the assertion that he gives “interviews on paid promotional sources” is baseless. Which interviews specifically are paid? Those with The Times of India on hate speech, NDTV, Bloomberg, or discussions on caste and income in The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Telegraph, New Indian Express, or the op-eds on LGBT rights? Just a simple Google search shows that subject has several engagements. And his bio is openly available across academic space to help people create his profile.
It may be reasonable to debate the subject’s notability, it is inappropriate to dismiss their legitimate work as “paid” without evidence. I encourage editors to adhere to Wikietiquette WP:AFDEQ to remain impartial and decide constructively in this discussion. Thank you. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pinknetwork123: What unsourced negative comments do you think have been made here? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot @Jlwoodwa for your comment. The comments made here on 1. “obvious” undisclosed paid editing 2. “paid PR articles” and 3. interviews on “paid promotional” sources, make unsourced negative claims about the subject and his work, which affects their reputation in this public space. This is not in line with Wikietiquette policy.
The article cites several reputed and credible secondary sources from the Indian media specifically covering the subject and his work. After this discussion, I agree there are some primary sources which can be removed, and the article can be modified to Wiki standards. The article has been put twice by two different editors in the mainspace.
I understand that editors can put any article to AfD, but I agree with Wikietiquette that AfD should not become a place for making unsubstantiated claims about the work of a living person. I’d welcome a more measured tone when dealing with living persons. Thank you! Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
This is very much a promotional article [1], so the statement stands. Others are items this person published under their own name, and are a primary source. No articles strictly about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
They aren't commenting on the person named in the deletion, but the authors that wrote the paid pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that the findings in his research are being covered by newspapers of record and the fact that he holds the position of a assistant professor at IIM Bangalore would sufficiently qualify him to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7. Sohom (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Many are passing mentions coming from a report released by the Indian Institute of Management. The Hindu article has no byline and the impact of the report is nowhere to be seen. The second Hindu article is authored by a freelance journalist and a study/ report done with 2 others. 3 has some interview bytes and 4 only mentions his name once.
The position of Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore doesn't carry much weight when evaluating for WP:NACADEMIC. I believe the extensive coverage about the latest report is only because it is related to Karnataka's govt, which i beleive only makes it as routine coverage.
I fail to see Prateek Raj's reports creating substantial impact in terms of citations or otherwise. AFAICS, they fail to meet all eight criterias listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jeraxmoira To clear one thing up, I did not imply that the position "Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore" carries much weight. What I implied was that given the fact that he is a professor, we should use the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to evaluate him instead of the more stringent WP:GNG criteria. Sohom (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot to both of you for your comments. The academic is known for 3 separate issues, reported in reputed and prominent media houses of India. I will highlight only media mentions that cover exclusively or prominently him.
1. for his recent paper on Dalit economy, where he has been interviewed in the Hindu, the Telegraph, the Indian Express, the New Indian Express, the Times of India. All these interviews are referenced in the article, like, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/dalit-business-owners-experience-income-gap-of-16-when-compared-to-other-disadvantaged-groups-finds-study/article68505789.ece
2. for his work on hate speech. He has a full interview with The Times India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/podcasts/the-times-of-india-podcast/how-hate-can-hurt-indias-economic-dreams/videoshow/102992737.cms. He also has a detailed interview with Indian Express and NDTV, and well as a full interview on history of media markets in Bloomberg.
3. for his advocacy of LGBT rights. His October 2023 OpEd in the Indian Express merits him a notable place in LGBT Academics category, which is underpopulated, and needs more biographies https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/sc-marriage-equality-judgment-8992557/.
Thanks to this review process, which is helpful as it helps identify what is noteworthy about the subject. The constructive way forward may be to trim the article with only the most noteworthy information. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sources on the page are quite poor with some written by the subject himself and some others with passing mention and interviews on paid promotional sources. Some sources are also unreliable. The subject has not had a significant noteworthy impact through his profession and outside the profession nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Page also reads as resume. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some more opinions here. But, Pinknetwork123 know that interviews don't help establish notability. Their content can be used to verify article content but having the subject talk about themself and their work doesn't help demonstrate that the subject themself is notable (as Wikipedia judges notability).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz! Your input helped me assess the sources better. With AfC and AfD processes, the article has significantly improved with mostly credible secondary sources that meet WP:NACADEMIC#7 in my view (thanks for highlighting Sohom!). I focused on Wikipedia:BLPRS-compliant sources that aren't based on press releases, particularly relevant in the Indian context (Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA). Here are a few: The Telegraph, The Hindu, and Indian Express highlight the author’s work on caste; Economic Times and Mint cover his work on regional inequality. The one-to-one Times of India interview is as a notable hate speech activist, and his October 2023 Indian Express Op-Ed, though a primary source, is relevant for his role as an LGBT academic from Global South (an underrepresented group on Wikipedia, here). Pinknetwork123 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not seem to pass academic notability with very few publications. Wonderful that they advocate for change, but just not enough non-puffy coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The article has undergone a lot of revision since it was nominated. Here is the source assessment for the current version with 23 sources.
    • Direct independent coverage from secondary sources for criteria WP:NACADEMIC#7 (reliable) 11 sources: 1 (Hindu), 2, 21, 22 (Indian Express), 6 (NDTV), 7, 20 (Times of India), 10, 11 (Telegraph India), 12 (New Indian Express), 23 (Bloomberg)
    • Significant mention in independent coverage from secondary sources (reliable) 3 sources: 3 (Economic Times), 4 (The Mint), 20 (Outlook)
    • Direct coverage from secondary sources but could be press release. (partially reliable) 2 sources: 13 (Times of India), 18 (Hindu)
    • Primary sources (less reliable) 7 sources: 5 (Op-Ed by author - Indian Express), 8, 16 (Profile, Report - Chicago Booth), 9 (Paper by author - PLOS One), 14 (News - IIMB), 15 (News - King’s College), 17 (Report - US Congress)Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep As noted above, criterium 7 of WP:NACADEMIC is clearly met with extensive and diverse media coverage in more than one occurrences. Meeting one of the criteria is enough for academic notability.
JamesKH76 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I would like you to mention the extensive and diverse media coverage that Prateek Raj has received for his substantial impact outside academia, apart from the promotional, Op-ed, routine coverage of reports presented to governments and interview sources. To be precise, please highlight his substantial impact . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm on the fence, but reading through the references I would say WP:NACADEMIC is probably satisfied (also per Sohom). There are a sufficient number of independent, reliable sources providing coverage, albeit some not spectacularly robust. GhostOfNoMeme 21:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    I should also like to add that the nominator's obvious undisclosed paid editing aspersion seems a tad unnecessary and hardly in keeping with assuming good faith of our fellow editors. It hardly sets the stage for a productive discussion (not that AfDs are exactly known for their convivial atmosphere...). GhostOfNoMeme 21:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    How can you expect good faith when the author has admitted to editing Wikipedia without logging in, to the extent that they are able to come up with a 20k byte article? Are you saying they’re unaware of their COI, yet have managed to produce an article that follows all style and formatting guidelines? They still haven't disclosed their COI on their user page, even after acknowledging it in this AfD. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think passing academic notability is a rather generous interpretation of the sources; they mention him but aren't about him. A few mentions isn't quite what we need to prove academic notability Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, maybe I am being too generous. I'll look back over the references when I have the time and consider amending my vote or just striking it. GhostOfNoMeme 02:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The Fleeting Ends (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 seeing anything that would make this a pass under WP:BAND. No in depth reviews, charting records or significant awards or recognition. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Not Sure: I updated existing references and added some additional ones. It looks like the band was active 2008-2015 and then again in 2018 with Vantine and others. For the reformed band in 2018, the references I found list different people than the article originally named (I changed the article to reflect what's in the sources). The originally named people are in pictures that are part of the article but I can't find any sources that link them directly to "The Fleeting Ends". There is coverage of this band in the local Philly outlets that cover indie bands, it's more limited outside - I see some newspaper articles that announced tour dates and the Popmatters magazine article about a release in 2018. I'd rather someone with more knowledge about WP:BAND weigh in. Nnev66 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Turkish Informatics Olympiad (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)

Tagged uncited for 15 years and does not exist on Turkish Vikipedi. If it is notable maybe some competitors or former competitors could cite this? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

For reference: I think relevant trwiki article is this: tr:Ulusal Bilim Olimpiyatları Tehonk (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks I have linked Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
There are propably enough sources. But in Turkish, unfortunatly. Luhanopi (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
All the sources in the Turkish article are Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
If you would like to cite Turkish sources that would be great Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Dumitru Găleșanu (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)

There is no clear evidence of notability. The subject has won three obscure prizes: that’s it. I also suspect paid editing: the article is by a new account, with links to google.pk. I would imagine that someone from Pakistan whose very first article is about a random Romanian poet was paid to publish. Biruitorul Talk 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Worth noting that the creator has been locked for UPE; this article therefore might need significant cleanup. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Daigo Tanioka (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:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

List of Pakistani animated television series (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)

An unsourced list of non-notable work does not really meet WP:NLIST imv. and since it includes only a handful of entries, it's make sense to delete it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not a notable list for now without prejudice to recreating at some point with reliable sources. jwtmsqeh (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
List of career achievements by Stephen Curry (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)

Similar to other articles in the Career achievements of basketball players category, this is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections sourced primarily to non-secondary sources such as the AI website StatsMuse and Basketball Reference. As such, this is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the most pertient info is already found in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Alot of what is in the article should go but there are sources out there that specifically discuss Curry's career achievements such as from Sky Sports and NBC Sports. Whether it is enough for a standalone article, I'll let others decide. Alvaldi (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Some relevant policies are WP:INDISCRIMINATE:

    To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

    WP:NOTSTATS:

    Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.

    The article lacks the context that those policies expect to put the collection of bullet items into perspective for the reader.—Bagumba (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment The AI site StatMuse is cited almost 200 times on the page. Consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 400 § StatMuse and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association § Statmuse is that the site is not reliable and the AI nature of the site amounts to WP:OR, as the editor enters queries to get results from a WP:PRIMARY source database. Per the WP:SECONDARY policy:

    Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.

    Bagumba (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a recent related AfD on a Hall of Famer who transcends basketball that was closed as "delete".—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment After reviewing the page again, I went on to delete large chunks of trivial content that lacked merit and/or were unsubstantiated. All StatMuse references and any inferable content from sites such as ClutchPoints and Basketball Reference (database-searched content) have also been removed to retain credibility and avoid the violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Furthermore, franchise and college-based records have been tabulated to enhance readability. It is fair to say that the current version is far sleeker and concrete with credible citations (with the exception of a handful of records which I am in the process of finding the right sources for). As the page's latest version also shows, Curry has an extensive list of notable records and milestones. Incorporating them in one page seems like a more organised and logical approach to me. In addition, it is common knowledge that Curry, like Bryant and James, is generally considered an all-time great with a significant impact on the sport. However, the achievements pages of the latter-two (Bryant's and James') have a wide range of unverified content, particularly Bryant's, that still stand without any corrections being made. The notion of whether Curry warrants a standalone records page may not seem like a "no-brainer", but its closure seems unjustified if each factor in this comment is considered in totality.—Beemer03 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 18:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep Treating this on its individual merits and making no comparison with the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar discussion. On balance, this subject is a desirable and valid WP:SPINOFF; desirable because the corresponding section of the main Stephen Curry article is very long; and valid because I can find existing references which discuss his achievements and records in a standalone manner [8] [9]. Most comments above represent problems which can and should be solved by improvement, not deletion. Aspirex (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:NOTEVERYTHING is my biggest concern with this page:

    Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

    Then there is WP:NOTSTATS and the lack of commentary. Curry's impact on changing basketball by dominating as a smaller player with 3-point shooting is the bigger story. The slew of records feel secondary, and the niche ones that involves multiple conditions (e.g. "Oldest player in NBA history to average over 30 points per game through the first 10 games of a season") feel especially trivial. How many get historically mentioned years after the actual game? But with data and technology, these are available and oft-mentioned during and after a game. Beemer03 had been working to pare the cruft from the page. I think it will take some time to make the necessary editorial decisions on what should be on this page, and then decide if the remaining content is worthy of a standalone page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: then perhaps draftify is the way to go for now? And maybe the page can be restored to mainspace if there's consensus at a relevant centralized venue like WT:NBA. Left guide (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    A few points at WP:DRAFTNO suggest not draftifying. I don't see any gross policy violations that compel me to !vote to draftify. —Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
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 merge‎ to Government of Ebrahim Raisi. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Government of Mohammad Mokhber (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)

Hello, after the death of Ebrahim Raisi, no new government has been formed in Iran and only Mohammad Mokhber, Ebrahim Raisi's deputy, temporarily headed the 13th cabinet until Masoud Pezeshkian won the 2024 election and became the president of Iran and formed the 14th cabinet. I must point out that the formation of the cabinet by Mohammad Mokhber was possible if he presented a list of proposed ministers to the Islamic Consultative Assembly and asked for a vote of confidence from the representatives, However, according to Iranian law, dismissal and vote of confidence in cabinet ministers are prohibited until the new president takes office. It should be noted that a similar page was created for this topic in Persian Wikipedia, which led to the deletion of that page in the request for deletion on June 8, 2024. Mihanyar (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Merge to Government of Ebrahim Raisi and note that they were caretaking and no major changes to the cabinet occurred after Raisi's death and before Pezeshkian took office. Nate (chatter) 16:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above; there is really no reason for this to be its own page instead of part of Raisi's. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
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.
Miyu Takahashi (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:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being a BLP, the threshold for retention is higher. More source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 13:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Draftify. NBAD is irrelevant when NSPORT itself is not met. The Hochi link does seem to cover her playing beyond the one tournament, but it is not enough to overcome the stricter SIGCOV requirements in place for high school-age athletes (which she was at the time). Draftifying might give people a bit more time to find more recent sources. The other two links identified above are pretty routine tournament recaps. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (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 propose this article for deletion because there are many, many, many "sources" but which are often profiles and biographies sometimes written by the artist himself and anonymous users, the sourcing is horrible and it is difficult to find your way around, if the article is eligible it is absolutely necessary to rework the sourcing, I tried to improve it, but... SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Also a lot of these "sources" come from databases like AllMusic, are there any press articles or better quality elements? SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: I have applied {{subst:afd2}} to this nomination, which did not previously have the full AfD formatting. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch 05:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch 05:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep has had a No.1 hit album and other hits on Billboards Top Christian Albums chart and also has coverage in album reviews on reliable sources such as AllMusic and CrossRythmns. Also this is significant coverage with a byeline here, and also here. The article can be rewritten or shortened but AfD is not for clean-up purposes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hello @Atlantic306, I am not against keeping the article and you may be right about the non-necessity of this Afd, I could not find where I could make this type of request. But in the current state the article should be put back in draft and be republished later when a sorting of sources will be done because the article is hardly clear in the current state SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, although it happens articles older than 6 months are not supposed to be moved to draft so if it is kept it needs to be fixed while in mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The sourcing on this article is a mess. Far, far too many citations to sources that don't help with notability, which makes assessing it very difficult. I have gone through every single reference and found exactly one that in my opinion shows notability: Soultracks bio, which looks like an independent and in-depth biography. Doing a search, I have found: Hot Hits book, a little snippet; Charisma and Christian Life, a frustratingly obscured piece that looks to be mostly about an album but I can't be sure. The second source Atlantic306 has noted is an interview, which cannot contribute to notability (sorry).
In short, based on the sources I could find, delete. It feels like there should be enough RS somewhere out there, but they're not in the article and I can't find enough to say keep. Atlantic306, do you have access to any offline sources that are pushing you towards keep? He seems like he ought to be notable...maybe some of his albums are notable and we could redirect? StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I don't have access to any offline sources but there are quite a few book results in a google search which I cant assess unfortunately as either its a small snippet given or none at all. Reviews of his music do count towards notability so I would include the reviews on CrossRythmns and on AllMusic (the paragraph ones, not the single sentence ones), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

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 Tonga National Rugby League. as an ATD Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Article has a signle reference which isn't actually anything to do with the article subject. Google searching the topic only returns the Wikipedia and the Facebook page. "Official Website" is a GoDaddy domain sale site. Mn1548 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep (provisionally) on grounds of WP:NEXISTS (sort of).redirect to Tonga National Rugby League. Deletion not the best outcome because this article pre-exists the redirect target -- the target started as a redirect to this article -- and we should retain the history.
This article [10] tells part of the story - they got kicked out of the International Rugby League and had no support from the Tonga government. And this [11] from last week says Tonga has been readmitted under new management. The second one is primary, and I haven't found a source that reported the announcement although I have seen articles about the Tonga team already scheduled for matches.
Adding to the confusion, in 2013 a retired editor may have had a tendency to unconstructively edit rugby pages, e.g., [12]. This diff shows what was added to the article, suggesting that even if though it wasn't a hoax to begin with it became one later. TNRL Global Insurance redirect should probably be deleted.
So deleting the article right now may leave them with no article for the team. The article as it stands is a hot mess, but it exists and could perhaps be salvaged.
Happy to hear further views on this. Oblivy (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you have confused the subject of this AfD with Tonga National Rugby League. This AfD is for the competition Tongan National Rugby League where as the sources provided relate to the governing body which is linked first. Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Or this may just be me getting confused on the differences between revision. In that case a redirect to Tonga National Rugby League could be a better option (for now) so at least the page history is still there for anyone who wants to attempt to salvage it. Mn1548 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This is helpful.
As I understand it, Tonga National Rugby League was created as a redirect to Tongan National Rugby League by the person who had at the time renamed Tongan to TNRL Global Insurance Cup. Then Tonga was rebuilt as a good faith article while TNRL/Tongan remained a piece of trash article.
So the proper thing would be to delete Tongan and then Tonga needs to be updated? I still think the TNRL redirect page is unlikely to be of any value.
Note: I haven't included diffs as this is all quite convoluted. But the history of the articles around 2013 shows the moves by @Renamed user 9r8u7g6b5y4n3r2l1 Oblivy (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I still feel deletion is the best course of action. The Tonga article is clearly about the governing body whereas the TongaN article is trying to be both the governing body and competition AND is unsourced. Plus I can't find anything to suggest the competition is notable as a stand alone article. Mn1548 (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I've changed my vote to redirect. The history of these articles is messy and I don't really feel like pulling them apart to see if there's any common history. A redirect is pretty harmless and it could pass for accidental misspelling if you don't view edit history. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a confusing situation with two articles with nearly identical page titles. A few more opinions here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete one source is not enough to stand need more sources. Xegma(talk) 12:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
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.
Workers Vanguard Party of Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable. Tagged unsourced for over a decade and the Kurdish article has no sources either. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Middle East. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - as usual, articles shouldn't be tagged for AfD based on the lack of references in the article at present, but based on the availability of potential sources for expansion. A quick google books search reveals plenty of material that could be used, based on both Kurdish and Turkish versions of the name, which could be used for sourcing and expansion before bringing the article to AfD process. --Soman (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
    • For example, you might want to note wordings like "We will now briefly go through the expressions employed about the 'armed struggle' by the three prinicipal groups which had remarkably drawn more popular support among the Kurds of Turkey than the PKK in the late 1970s. The Vanguard Workers Party of Kurdistan (PPKK ..." (Turkey's Kurds: A Theoretical Analysis of the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan, my emphasis) --Soman (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify It should not be in mainspace. Ben Azura (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep – Reliable sources exist. Dratifying an old article is a waste of time. Yue🌙 04:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Bengal Pro T20 League (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)

Don't need separate season articles for this tournament, as the coverage doesn't warrant it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep @Joseph2302, It is the largest tournament in East and North East India and it's one of the important leagues in India, I presume after a few years it will have same importance as Tamil Nadu Premier League or KSCA tournament, I believe this article should be kept. Beside that, can you please highlight the main issue in this article other than the coverage. A league can't be famous in just one season, it needs time, and this league had enough coverage being a new league according to what I saw in the internet and from the residents of West Bengal. Wowlastic10 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Note Several Twenty20 pages have existed includimg thier annual leagues for many years, and in my opinion, it is not appropriate to nominate them for deletion.

It appears that certain teams are selectively promoting specific and state-level leagues while pushing for the deletion of others. This practice seems to favor the retention of pages related to their preferred leagues, potentially at the expense of others.

Wikipedia is a global platform that should uphold the principle of equality for all pages that have significant coverage. It's important to ensure that all state and national leagues with significant covearge, regardless of their popularity or backing, are treated fairly and given the opportunity to be represented. Consistent and unbiased application of Wikipedia's guidelines is crucial to maintaining its integrity as a reliable and inclusive source of information. Davidrun99 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. None of the above keep reasons offer any reasoning whatsoever, just "these exist, so this should too". Clearly, this tournament also fails WP:GNG and consists wholly of WP:NOTSTATS. AA (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't told that Just because other tournament exists, this too shall exist. The Tamil Nadu premier league season pages exist because we have given them time. Why don't we give time to this article? Please Highlight how can I save this article rather than demotivating. Thank you! Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The league is not notable (even majority of the players) or noteworthy enough nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Fails WP:GNG. No need for separate page when most of the WP:CFORK is from Bengal Pro T20 League RangersRus (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    please give suggestions to save this article. I will start research and find all necessary website articles for it. Thank you! Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Wowlastic10 not commenting on this but basically what you need is 3 reliable sources with significant coverage; i.e. three news articles from different outlets, independent of the tournament, and not almost-entirely derived from official press releases, giving a couple paragraphs on it would likely work. Strictly you only need "multiple reliable sources" but 3 is the usual amount. I think the article *might* have this now, but I can't tell? Wikipedia notability really isn't supposed to be about how important something is, but how much writing exists on it. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)


  • Comment, Guidelines / Standards for Establishing Wikipedia Notability for State Cricket Leagues:

In my opinion, establishing clear guidelines for creating Wikipedia articles related to state cricket leagues is essential to ensure they meet the notability criteria and have a lasting presence on the platform. To pass the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG and retain annual league and team articles, I propose the following criteria:

Completion of Multiple Seasons: State leagues, such as the Tamil Nadu Premier League, should successfully complete at least one to three annual league series. This demonstrates consistency, relevance, and the league’s potential for long-term significance in the cricketing landscape.

Involvement of National Players: The state league should feature at least 10 players who have competed in prestigious events such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), national cricket tournaments, or international matches. The presence of such players not only elevates the league's standard but also increases its notability and media coverage.

Minimum Team Requirement and Broadcast Standards: To align with national and international guidelines, the state cricket league should consist of a minimum of six teams. Additionally, the league should be broadcast live on major sports channels like Star Sports, ESPN, or equivalent platforms. This ensures widespread visibility and demonstrates the league’s significance beyond the local level.

By adhering to these guidelines, we can ensure that Wikipedia articles about state cricket leagues are both notable and valuable resources for readers, reflecting the importance of these leagues in the broader context of cricket. Davidrun99 (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Just writing the rules/entry criteria for a tournament doesn't mean that it passes WP:GNG, which is the main criteria for whether an article is kept or not (not any of the rules you're making up on this and similar AFDs). Where is the evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. checking the refs and doing a BEFORE search, I couldn't find any prose reference which described the final, just scorecard websites.no report. So there's not only no WP:SIGCOV, there's not even any WP:ROUTINE of the biggest game. Fails GNG.
Spinin (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Regardless of whether articles like this are needed, do the sources establish notability for this league?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete without WP:SALTing. Reviewing the references, I'm on the fence about whether the referencing meets a GNG level or not. Given the newness and existing WP:OFFCRIC practices, I think the right approach is to delete for now, and recreate later if after a few seasons the competition does more clearly meet GNG year after year. Aspirex (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I have found articles by Hindustan Times, NDTV Sports, Times of India, News18, are this eleigible? Wowlastic10 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Wowlastic10, you can't just say that you found sources, you have to share links so that other editors here can evaluate whether or not they are reliable and provide SIGCOV. But I'd hurry, this AFD might close soon. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@Liz @Joseph2302 These are few reference examples:
1. https://www.news18.com/cricket/bengal-pro-t20-league-2024-full-list-of-matches-squad-details-livestreaming-info-and-more-8928067.html
2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/news/writtick-chatterjee-leads-smashers-to-table-top-in-bengal-pro-league/articleshow/111090607.cms
3. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/bengal-pro-t20-league-t20-is-here-to-stay-it-will-take-cricket-forward-says-ganguly-101714823497909.html
4. https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/bengal-pro-t20-league-ipl-style-format-schedule-and-teams-2522471-2024-04-02
5. https://www.timesnownews.com/sports/cricket/cab-declares-launch-of-bengal-pro-t20-league-to-begin-immediately-after-ipl-2024-article-109092046
6. https://www.news18.com/cricket/cab-announce-regional-cricket-league-bengal-pro-t20-to-include-8-mens-and-womens-teams-8838333.html
7. https://www.aninews.in/news/sports/cricket/bengal-pro-t20-league-set-to-kick-off-from-june-202420240421141602
8. https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/sourav-ganguly-jhulan-goswami-unveil-bengal-pro-t20-league-champions-trophy-2535036-2024-05-03 Wowlastic10 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
My view: [13] is WP:ROUTINE coverage. [14] looks okay as a source about 2024 season. [15], [16], [17] are about the general tournament (which is not up for deletion) rather than the specific season article. [18], [19], [20] are regurgitated press releases. I'm not against Bengal Pro T20 League article existing, but don't believe we need individual season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Amel Rachedi (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 finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  • keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Jamaica Gleaner piece reads as promotional rather than as journalism. Sandstein 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Yogacharya Govindan Nair (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 don’t see any sources in English to support WP:AUTHOR. The subject has written multiple books but I see no in-depth reviews, just online bookshops and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Twenty Seventh Edition of his book was released on the International day by the publisher who published his book nearly 4 decades ago. here is the link https://www.instagram.com/dcbooks/p/C8eOMOMyNxz/?hl=en&img_index=1 2405:201:E010:706F:F0B9:15A2:5E91:AA5B (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:NBIO. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, who is not widely cited by peers or successors. As Author and Yoga instructor, subject has not created a significant or well-known work and I cannot find subject's work in multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The article creator objects to deletion (see User talk:Versatilegeek#Nomination of Yogacharya Govindan Nair for deletion) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There are sources for the article and there is no ground for deleting this page. Lack of contribution does not necessitate deletion of a page. Such a practice will only contribute to removal of information about the lesser known people. I strongly oppose the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versatilegeek (talkcontribs) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • I just noticed this comment which was placed outside the discussion so I have moved it here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment to the objection that “there are sources” my response as nominator is that I don’t doubt that the subject is the author of multiple books. What there is not is anything that demonstrates notability. We don’t allow bio articles sourced almost entirely to online shopping sites with dead links. In addition not a single detail of the subject’s life is even verifiable based on the refs in the article or anything else I can find in English. I don’t think it’s acceptable to retain an entirely unverified bio on the strength of a claim that “there are sources.” Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
As you say, sources don’t have to be in English. They can be in any language but if they exist this discussion is the place to share them. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: I believe the Malayalam samayam source mentioned by Pinknetwork123 is WP:CIRCULAR. The feature story reads exactly like it was generated from this Wikipedia article, with no new information. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not able to find any coverage in reliable sources or reviews of his books. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
JOJ WAU (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)

Probably not notable. I could only find this: [22], [23], [24]. This probably does not constitute significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not sure about the merits of the proposed redirect as the article lists that target page (TV JOJ) as the sister station to this one. Any additional thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Deleted in January as Nutan (actor). Still doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

As the person who accepted this article, initially I thought he might meet the general notability guideline, but now looking back, yeah, he doesn't. Delete. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Search about him on Google, YouTube and other websites. I think he meets the general notability guideline. Most of his articles are in Nepalese language, so you might be thinking that way. Thanks! 111.119.49.66 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion, so relisting to come to clearer consensus to delete the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Mizuki Otake (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:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. NBAD is subordinate to the higher requirements of NSPORT, including SPORTCRIT, which demands an IRS SIGCOV source be cited in the article. Routine event recaps don't count towards notability, and we don't have evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT through any other coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
South Africa women's national under-18 softball team (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 independent, third party coverage uncovered for this subject to meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG. The only sources in the article now are primary. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG or any SNG, the sources are not speaking for the subject in question. Largely lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Leaning weak keep, because there are sources that point to significant coverage about him. I am just that not sure if there is consensus (doesn't seem like it on archived RS feed) that conclude tribuneonlineng.com or guardian.ng to be generally unreliable. Those two plus a couple of paragraphs on thenationonlineng.net, make up reason to pass WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: very much not notable, from the "30 under 30 list" to the typical puffy articles from Nigerian media, this individual isn't suitable for wikipedia. I'm not finding any suitable sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Bouheida (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 add verifying this information. Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Bouhdida Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

While UPEI is notable, the union does not inherit that notability. This serves as a promo piece. Wozal (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The union receives very regular coverage from the CBC:
And from, as far as I can tell, at least one other outlet:
So maybe it can still go in UPEI, but you can’t dismiss this out of hand. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions. So, is what being suggested by one editor a Merge to University of Prince Edward Island? It helps if you provide a link to the target article as there might be several articles that exist on the same overall subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Markíza Dajto (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 previously PRODded the article with the rationale being "Not notable - no in-depth independent coverage". It was deprodded by Mushy Yank with a note to look at the Slovak article. There indeed are some sources, but the only claims they make about this channel are:

  1. that it became available on DVB-T (with some technical details), and
  2. that Towercom resumed broadcasting it.

These two claims hardly constitute significant coverage, therefore I am renominating this article for deletion, this time at AfD. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovakia. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as a WP:SPLITLIST of Markiza, a major Slovak network.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    The article is not a list. It is an ordinary article about the channel – it is list-like because of its low quality. The article on Markíza also shouldn't be list-like; it even carries the "not a directory" improvement template. Janhrach (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    SPLITLIST is not only about stricto sensu list articles, but anyway, yes, the article is a list. It has an introduction but it is very much in the list format, as yourself admit. As for the rest, feel free to discuss it on the article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    I do not see why would this article count as SPLITLIST. The article Markíza is about a different, sister, channel; not about the company (at least primarily).
    Also, quoting from WP:NLIST: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." Janhrach (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Markíza as ATD. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 10:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

UP T20 League (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 mass-created minor league which fails WP:GNG and WP:OFFCRIC. Oh, and I better nominate it for deletion, despite the threat not too! AA (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously listed as WP:PROD, not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)