User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

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 07:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Scott Cinemas	20 days ago	2	4755	1690.8
Giant Records (independent)	18 days ago	1	5731	1683.71
Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)	21 days ago	3	8244	1682.59
Back to the Real	20 days ago	3	5342	1640.36
2007 Gerry Reilly Cup	19 days ago	2	6854	1629.79
Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography	20 days ago	4	8055	1620.65
Şifa University	17 days ago	1	7764	1541.6
Uşşaki	17 days ago	2	5508	1442.92
Kaoli Isshiki	15 days ago	3	21996	1261.94
Mold-Tek Packaging	12 days ago	0	3461	1259.37
Liangyou Group	13 days ago	1	13059	1239.97
Ana Coimbra	14 days ago	3	8517	1234.58
Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)	12 days ago	1	6711	1216.98
Lada Niva Vision	13 days ago	2	3715	1215.25
Lee Du-haeng	13 days ago	2	6529	1211.11
Turkish tango music	14 days ago	3	3746	1198.56
Zainal Arifin Mochtar	12 days ago	1	6144	1193.79
Kallakkadal	12 days ago	2	4678	1167.39
Arthur H. Marshall	13 days ago	3	5055	1164.61
Anna Cymmerman (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	3	8882	1132.09
Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani	11 days ago	3	6757	1003.21
DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)	8 days ago	0	3129	995.23
Zoé Kézako	8 days ago	1	3632	975.41
Uvolit Zhoru	8 days ago	1	4246	974.84
Ario Nahavandi	11 days ago	3	28186	961.75

Scott Cinemas

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

Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/7-things-scott-cinemas-bridgwater-2585607 ; https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/20307914.exmouth-cinema-gets-42-000-government-funding/ and multiple other sources indicate a certain notability imv; at the very least could be redirected to list of film theater chains (currently AfDed.; same nom.) for example. I DpD the page; same nom . -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC) (nb-Needless to say I am opposed to deletion)
This is very trivial coverage, certainly not sufficient per WP:ORGDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect Doesn’t merit an article of its own. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Any redirect target in mind? Owen× ☎ 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear if there are objections or support for the Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC

Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"Andrew Jackson's Native American pet"? He called him a pet, so no slur here against the esteemed slaveholder, we wouldn't want to do that of course. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- As bad as that sounds in 2024, language changes over the centuries. "a pampered and usually spoiled child" Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet among a lot of different definitions pulled up by a search. Unless we can dig up the year 1814 definition, we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For clarity: this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Back to the Real

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

Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Given the concurrent discussion for the group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, the album has some notablitily for low chart placement and a couple of middling hit singles, but more reliable sources for those achievements are needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep either this or Reel Tight, merging text and redirecting to one or the other. It made three charts; the dead links don't matter as they can be resolved, and in the case of Vibe, the citation is to the mag; and the nominator gave no indication that a BEFORE was performed, let alone if the BEFORE used databases and non-Google methods to look for sources about a group from the late '90s... Caro7200 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - The band's article just barely survived delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, and I have fleshed out their article a bit with sources from this album article, though there is very little to work with. That may alter the trajectory of this album AfD, though I will leave my vote as-is to avoid confusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Reel Tight: now that the target survived AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is likely the final relist - Can we reach a consensus between keeping this article or redirecting it to Reel Tight?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

2007 Gerry Reilly Cup

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

Non-notable edition/staging of amateur sports event - that doesn't meet WP:NSEASON or WP:SIGCOV or WP:NEVENT. Even if the competition as a whole (the Gerry Reilly Cup) has notability, there is nothing to indicate that this single running of that event has independent notability. Certainly the text of the article, the refs within it, and a WP:BEFORE search for other sources do not appear to establish independent notability. If not deleted, as an WP:ATD, the title could perhaps be redirected to Gerry Reilly Cup (perhaps to a section WP:WITHIN it dealing with the 2007 event). But there is otherwise no apparent sources/rationale for a single instance of this (non-national, provincial, amateur, childrens/schoolboy) competition has independent notability. (By extension I would question the expectation/presumption, in this template, that every annual occurrence of this amateur/teenage competition warrants a standalone WP:NSEASON/WP:NEVENT article....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I intend to create more articles for annual events of this provincial underage football competition, which has grown in stature with each passing year, with counties beyond the province of Leinster now participating. The 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article was created because when I located the Gerry Reilly Cup article, I found it to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was possibly created in 2007 as it focused very much on that year's competition. I tidied up the article and thought it best to create a standalone 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to place the bulk of content that I found on the main page. The format of the tournament has also changed since 2007 so the content had become dated and no longer accurate in the way that it appeared on the main page. It was also quite challenging to source references for that renewal of the tournament which happened seventeen years ago. Moresthepity (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. If it's "challenging to source references for [..the event..] which happened seventeen years ago", would that not indicate that WP:SIGCOV isn't met? And that, perhaps, (whatever about the competition as a whole or instances of the competition held on other years) the 2007 staging doesn't/didn't warrant a standalone article? Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here so I don't think this is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If the consensus is for deletion, how will data be saved? I would need to add much of what is contained in the 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to the original Gerry Reilly Cup article, otherwise the information will be lost. Moresthepity (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Gerry Reilly Cup – As WP:ATD. Under-16 competition that does not establish WP:GNG for each individual edition. Svartner (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography

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

The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional nominated article for the same reasons:

The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:

WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?

Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Television, Lists, Europe, Ireland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any policy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific policy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable policy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Guliolopez:, @Tuzapicabit: I've now elaborated to identify some specific policies. Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Guliolopez: @Tuzapicabit: Are you able to provide updated feedback based on the policies now added? You asked for this, so I want to make sure you've seen it and had a chance to respond/refute. Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both. Given the policies quoted here, particularly WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRIT, I believe there is a strong case to be made that these lists do not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Şifa University

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

I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - not automatically notable, but any public university is likely to be notable. This one, however, appears to be new, small and private. See [1]. As such, I would have thought it should pass WP:NORG to be notable. I have added it to the companies delsort. At this stage I have no view on whether it is notable or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)

etc.

What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Uşşaki

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Added some to the page.

By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep plenty of Turkish sources found but as Mushy Yank says above it’s quite a task to plough through Turkish books online to update the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [2] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [3] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [4] recital
4. [5] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Le Monde	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com	N	N	Y	N	N	The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording	N	N	Y	N	N	Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd	N	N	Y	N	N	Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de	N	?	N	N	N	Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic	N	N	Y	N	N	Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/	N	N	Y	N	N	This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com	N	N	Y	N	N	This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.

Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.

I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The article lacks mention of significant coverage or critical acclaim. There is also no information provided regarding the subject's record sales, chart placements, or awards, despite claims to the contrary. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Record sales, chart placements: not relevant for classical music. Recordings are, and recordings are there. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The SNG is tied to the notability of the record label. Albums made with an obscure small record label probably aren't notable. It's not like she recorded for a significant classical music label like Decca, Naxos, or Deutsche Gramophone which have international distribution. We don't even have an article on the label she recorded with which is telling. It looks to me like she is only active with a tiny French independent record label that doesn't appear all that notable. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Comments on the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Mold-Tek Packaging

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

Should be deleted due to insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, the content appears promotional and lacks critical analysis, making it better suited for consolidation within a broader article Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a speedy keep per WP:LISTED? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Liangyou Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Previous WP:PROD concerns still not addressed after many years. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and China. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete (soft) per nom. There’s no English language coverage of this company. If you find anything, please ping us. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Bearian (talk · contribs), I've found Chinese-language sources that I've posted below. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Luo, Yuyue 罗嵛月 (2015-04-15). "良友食用油曾经是上海老大，如今却输给金龙鱼" [Liangyou's edible oil was once the leader in Shanghai, but now it has lost to Golden Dragon Fish]. China Business News [zh] (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via China Business Network.
  This article has a lot of negative coverage about Liangyou's business failures and also covers the company's history. The article notes: "据《第一财经日报》记者多方了解，这家2011年总资产已达154亿元、全年销售收入165亿元的老牌国企，这几年却不尽如人意。食用油是良友的主营业务之一，良友集团原领导曾有“海狮兴，则良友兴”的论断，一位资深业内人士如此告诉本报记者。现实非常残酷，上海作为良友的总部，占尽“主场”便利，良友不仅输给了跨国粮油品牌金龙鱼，在央企品牌福临门和台湾品牌多力冲击下，良友也应对乏力，市场份额下滑。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the reporter of China Business News, this old state-owned enterprise, which had total assets of 15.4 billion yuan in 2011 and annual sales revenue of 16.5 billion yuan, has not been satisfactory in recent years. Edible oil is one of Liangyou's main businesses. The former leader of Liangyou Group once said that "if Sea Lion prospers, Liangyou will prosper", a senior industry insider told our reporter. The reality is very cruel. As the headquarters of Liangyou, Shanghai has the convenience of "home court". Liangyou not only lost to the multinational grain and oil brand Golden Dragon Fish, but also failed to cope with the impact of the central enterprise brand Fortune and the Taiwanese brand Duoli, and its market share declined."
  The article notes: "市场人士分析，良友食用油售价低，是因为作为国企，担负了上海市平抑物价的责任，企业品牌投入资金相对较少。这导致良友在市场竞争中非常不利。"
  From Google Translate: "Market analysts analyzed that the low price of Liangyou cooking oil is because, as a state-owned enterprise, it bears the responsibility of stabilizing prices in Shanghai, and the company's brand investment is relatively small. This puts Liangyou at a great disadvantage in market competition."
2. "中国经济 '99" [China Economy '99]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). 1999. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "公司建于 1998 年 10 月,目前已开业 100 家“良友便利”连锁店。未来发展目标是三年内建成 300 家连锁便利店。上海良友集团是根据国务院《关于进一步深化粮食流通体制改革的决定》精神,经中共上海市委、市人民政府批准,以国有骨干粮食企业为主体,于 1998 年 8 月 8日成立。上海良友(集团)有限公司是上海良友集团的核心企业,注册资金 17 亿元人民币。主要经营:粮油批发、加工,资产经营,实业投资,房地产开发经营及物业管理,科研开发,咨询服务,国内贸易等。下辖 7 个全资子公司, 2 个控股子公司。上海良友集团承担上海粮食市场流通主渠道任务。"
  From Google Translate: "The company was established in October 1998 and currently has 100 "Liangyou Convenience" chain stores in operation. The future development goal is to build 300 chain convenience stores within three years. Shanghai Liangyou Group was established on August 8, 1998, based on the spirit of the State Council's "Decision on Further Deepening the Reform of the Grain Circulation System", approved by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Municipal People's Government, with state-owned backbone grain enterprises as the main body. Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. is the core enterprise of Shanghai Liangyou Group with a registered capital of RMB 1.7 billion. Main business: grain and oil wholesale, processing, asset management, industrial investment, real estate development and operation and property management, scientific research and development, consulting services, domestic trade, etc. It has 7 wholly-owned subsidiaries and 2 holding subsidiaries. Shanghai Liangyou Group undertakes the main channel task of Shanghai grain market circulation."
3. Li, Jianzhi 李建致 (2019). "沐浴春风成长壮大——上海良友集团二十年之发展认领" [Growing Strong in the Spring Breeze: The 20-Year Development of Shanghai Liangyou Group]. 商业企业 [Commercial Enterprise] (in Chinese). No. 6. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "1998年,上海良友(集团)有限公司成立,从此粮油企业和职工,真正步人市场竞争的大海;2000年,改革、调整和转型,良友企业焕发出新的生机;2015年,联合重组,打造实力,良友集团风华正茂,昂首阔步。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1998, Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. was established. Since then, grain and oil enterprises and employees have truly stepped into the sea of market competition; in 2000, reform, adjustment and transformation, Liangyou Enterprises have regained new vitality; in 2015, joint reorganization and strength building, Liangyou Group is in its prime and strides forward."
4. Liu, Lijing 刘丽靓 (2015-05-08). "光明食品集团与上海良友集团联合重组" [Bright Food Group and Shanghai Liangyou Group Jointly Restructured]. China Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "上海良友集团是上海从事粮食经营的国有企业集团，承担着政府委托或指定的职能，为保障上海粮食安全和供给稳定服务。其经营领域涵盖粮油加工、仓储物流、便利连锁、粮油贸易、进出口业务、实业投资等。集团下属20家全资、控股子公司和13家参股公司，以及国家级粮油制品检验检测中心和上海市级集团技术中心。经过多年发展，旗下拥有海狮、乐惠、雪雀（福新）、味都、三添、友益等上海市著名商标和上海名牌产品，主要粮油产品上海市场占有率名列前茅。"
  From Google Translate: "Shanghai Liangyou Group is a state-owned enterprise group engaged in grain business in Shanghai. It undertakes the functions entrusted or designated by the government to serve the guarantee of Shanghai's grain security and stable supply. Its business areas cover grain and oil processing, warehousing and logistics, convenience chain, grain and oil trade, import and export business, industrial investment, etc. The group has 20 wholly-owned and holding subsidiaries and 13 joint-stock companies, as well as a national grain and oil product inspection and testing center and a Shanghai-level group technology center. After years of development, it owns Shanghai's famous trademarks and Shanghai famous brand products such as Sea Lion, Lehui, Snow Bird (Fuxin), Weidu, Santian, and Youyi. The market share of its main grain and oil products in Shanghai ranks among the top."
5. "日本九州农协与上海签订2000吨日本米出口协议" [The Kyushu Agricultural Cooperative in Japan has signed an export agreement for 2,000 tons of Japanese rice with Shanghai]. 中经网 [China Economic Net] (in Chinese). 2007-12-04.
  The article notes: "报道称，承销这批大米的是在中国具有大米专卖权的“良友集团”旗下的“上海良友公司”。"
  From Google Translate: "The report states that the underwriter of this batch of rice is "Shanghai Liangyou Company," which is under the "Liangyou Group," a company that has exclusive rights to sell rice in China."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shanghai Liangyou Group (simplified Chinese: 上海良友集团有限公司; traditional Chinese: 上海良友集團有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If the sources found by Cunard added to the article, then I’m going along with a Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ana Coimbra

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

We have here a good example of WP:BLP1E, a person whose purported notability is tied to a single event, i.e. a single beauty pageant event. There are three sources which are difficult to evaluate as a non-Portuguese reader; however, they note a) the pageant win and b) a couple of appearances at charity events in support of the pageant, including a (possibly public??) breast exam. This is way too thin to support the general notability guideline, and there are no SNGs that could apply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Lauriela Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)
Zuleica Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (two sources, one of which appears to be a nonexistent Facebook page)
Jurema Ferraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)

I have bundled the above articles for the same reason, except that they have even less sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I could find GNG in several sources of independent of subject. Check the Sout African here, I could find this, another by AngoRussia here, more here by Forbes Africa, also covered here in general. I could also stumble into this reported by subject's embassies in foreign countries. Again, you could not tag an article for AfD simply because it has less sources. That is the exact use of the template tags unless subject entirely has no traces of GNG. An article's sources being in foreign language other than in English is not a genuine reason for that. Otherwise, at very least, I would suggest redirecting it to Miss Angola, but then with pinged sources above, I go with keep. Hope the mentioned above can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Rebuttal: The Opais link you gave here is already in the article, and I dealt with its thinness in the deletion nomination. The embassy link provides just three sentences on the pageant, one of which is about the judges and not the subject of this bio. The South African gives us a bulleted list of stuff in the pageant handout like birth place and star sign, but nothing of substance for a biography – certainly nothing that could be used to expand the article. The Forbes article says very little at all, but notes she has an afro, a red swimsuit, and an unnamed "social project", but nothing really about the person. AngoRussia, a single sentence mentioning birthplace, area of study, and country of residence, nothing more. These, like the original sources, are shallow and/or in-passing and tied to the single event, which just underscores this is a BLP1E situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

An award is not an event, that passes, it’s an honour, that remains, and BLP1E does not apply imv. The guideline does not mention awards, at least, unless I missed it, whereas ANYBIO does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I tend to agree with the analysis above. The South African is a minimal source, if we had more, we could use it. But it's just not enough. The rest are trivial mentions or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: WP:ANYBIO might apply as she received a significant award; if other users disagree redirect to Miss_Angola#Titleholders -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I had missed the fact this was a bundled Afd....my !vote was originally about Lauriela Martins. Coverage in Pt exists about her. Ana Coimbra: see above, now. Other: idem. So keep all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Check all articles included in this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG... b-side song, didn't chart, no significant coverage in independent sources (all the news coverage references seem to be just regurgitated press releases from the group's agency saying the song exists).

Some of the article's content could maybe be salvaged and put into a newly-created article about the song's parent maxi-single (along with information on the other 3 songs, maybe?) but as it stands it doesn't fit the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Earth, Wind & Fire (song) § Japanese version per nom. Nothing came up for my search Mach61 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: here's are the reasons!

Recent Release and Reception: "Good Day" is the first original Japanese-language song by BoyNextDoor, released on July 10, 2024, as part of their maxi single "And," which also includes Japanese re-recordings of previous hits. This context showcases its importance in the group's discography and the expanding international reach of K-pop.
Cultural Impact: The song, characterized as a hip-hop track, deals with themes of self-empowerment and enjoying solitude after a breakup. This relatable subject matter can resonate with a wide audience, enhancing its cultural relevance.
Industry Recognition: BoyNextDoor has already gained significant recognition in the K-pop industry, including awards such as the Global Rising Artist at the 2023 Melon Music Awards. This success indicates a strong fanbase and establishes their credibility as a notable act.
Source Citations: Provide citations from reputable K-pop news sites like Allkpop, Kpopping, and Kpoppie that cover the song's release and significance. These sources validate the content and add weight to the article's claims about the song's impact and the group's activities. ( https://www.allkpop.com/video/2024/08/boynextdoor-reveal-special-mv-for-good-day-b-side-track ), (https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10), (https://kpoppie.com/boynextdoor-members-profiles/)
OTHER LINKS:
https://www.allkpop.com
https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10
https://kpoppie.com

WikiNicExplorer 7:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright so: none of these reasons assert how the song meets WP:NSONG notability criteria.
Point #2 doesn't describe any actual cultural impact, point #3 is discussing the notability of the band, not the song. Nobody is questioning the notability of the band, and point #4 is moot as none of those sources are reliable sources, and, in fact, most of them are specifically noted as unreliable sources at WP:KO/RS#UR.
Thanks RachelTensions (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why WP:Convenient Discussions is attributing the above keep vote to me, tried to fix it but anyway.. if anyone is confused it was made by WikiNicExplorer, not me. RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI it would appear that @WikiNicExplorer's above "keep" vote was generated by AI (asking ChatGPT to generate a response for why this article should not be deleted results in almost identical text). RachelTensions (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiNicExplorer has been blocked for sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nic.cartagena12 hence !vote should be voided. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Lada Niva Vision

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

A car that was never built. Does not seem capable of sustaining an article. Sourcing is just a bunch of "this car is coming" news articles which are substantially similar (and show up any time any car is announced), and then the cancellation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Russia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep It's certainly noteworthy, mostly for not being built. This could well be merged to the Renault–Nissan Common Module Family#CMF-B LS section, but it shouldn't just be deleted. Any decision on this article would apply pretty much equally to the Lada Iskra too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete WP:FUTURE, and certainly no indications of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Please don't delete other people's comments on AfDs, even when they disagree with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley I did not delete your comment intentionally, I think there was an editing conflict -- if you look at the times we were editing at the same time. My apologies, I would never do that intentionally. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Six months is enough time for more sources to appears. Svartner (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Lee Du-haeng

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

No secondary sources. Fails WP:NTRACK. Placed 32nd at one Olympics. Fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and South Korea. AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Some coverage:
- "[2014 경주국제마라톤]서른에 입문 늦깎이 "아들 위해 뛰었다"" [[2014 Gyeongju International Marathon] A late bloomer who started at age 30 “I ran for my son”]. The Dong-a Ilbo (in Korean). October 20, 2014. (c. 220 words)
- "늦깎이 마라토너 고양시청 '이두행' 런던行 확정 - 경기신문" [Late bloomer marathon runner Goyang City Hall ‘Lee Du-haeng’]. KGNews. April 10, 2012. (c. 170 words)
BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Also placed in the top 8 at continental championships. He did not take up athletics at age 30, but took up marathon near that age. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep via coverage above plus more under subject's Korean name "이두행": "이두행". The bar for NBASIC is met. --Habst (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Which pieces of coverage do you find when finding "more"? Geschichte (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Geschichte, here are some examples:
"해남군청 육상팀 이두행 선수 2관왕" [Haenam County Office Track and Field Team Player Lee Du-haeng Wins Two Gold Medals] (in Korean).

"이두행, 男 마라톤 32위로 골인…장신권, 정진혁도 완주" [Lee Doo-haeng, Men's Marathon 32nd Place, Jang Shin-kwon, Jeong Jin-hyeok Also Finish] (in Korean).
--Habst (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
None of those two articles are significant coverage Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Geschichte, how are the articles not significant, especially when combined with the above two as WP:NBASIC prong 1 allows for? --Habst (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The "Haenam County Office" is not significant because the part about him is literally two sentences long. What do you think significant means? Geschichte (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Sources cited above seem ok, they are about this individual and are in RS. I think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. The two cited sources above are routine event results with at most three sentences of (again, routine) secondary coverage. Nowhere close to GNG. The sources mentioned earlier are not SIGCOV enough to overcome the requirement for SUSTAINED coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sources from multiple years apart are not sustained coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  Oh I misread the marathons as being the same. I'll reconsider. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 4 November 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Turkish tango music

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

I found some sources such as https://www.idildergisi.com/ozet.php?dili=2&ref=1619560991&did=241 but am not sure notable enough Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep 'Turkish Tango in its 100th Year' in Istanbul: Melodic fusion of mastery, movement https://istanbultarihi.ist/770-the-tango-in-istanbul, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=966030 . Please, search for sources before nominating an article. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Like said again, There are applicable references- we just need to incorporate them. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: This topic has a full book about it: Tango and the Dancing Body in Istanbul (ISBN 978-1000469936). (comment is by User:Why? I Ask Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 10 November 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.

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree 03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
- Kompas is a major Indonesian newspaper, basically the Times of the country. The quoted article is an interview with the subject, which as per the article linked was also in the print edition. I'm also seeing a response to accusations related to the film (Indonesian), discussion of his views on legal issues,
- Detik is another solid source, and already cited in our article. There are still more sources like his response to accusations of partisanship,
I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Pulled open KompasPedia, and it is published by Kompas. Coverage is sufficient to show GNG, IMO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Kallakkadal

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

This is not a distinct phenomenon, but rather a local name for swell surge used in coastal Kerala, also known by various names in other parts of the world. Presenting it as a distinct phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. Additionally, this is not the Malayalam Wikipedia. Per WP:CFORK, this is an unnecessary content fork. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Fair enough, and I agree that this would be better treated as a more general topic, but I note that Swell (ocean) does not actually contain the term "swell surge", and does not seem to cover this type of phenomenon. Thus more a case for rewriting and generalizing than for redirecting or deleting? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge: The article primarily focuses on the swell phenomenon specific to the South Indian coastal region and its local name, "Kallakadal," within the broader context of swells. This is the main distinction highlighted in the article. I recommend merging this content with the Swell (ocean) and adding a brief section under a new headline to address this regional phenomenon (if required).--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - it’s basically a WP:FORK, but I won’t oppose a smerge. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthur H. Marshall

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

Ancestry.com and The Peak Seeker are not reliable. Highpointers.org is the official highpointing organization so should not be used here. The only seemingly reliable source here is The Oregonian. Unless more coverage can be found, I feel like Arthur H. Marshall's achievements are better discussed briefly in the highpointing article instead of in its own article as notability seems weak. The current state of the article is certainly not sufficient and is written poorly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Was not able to find additional reliable sources. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@DJ Cane:, please see current sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Leaning Keep

https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/10/29/for-certain-class-climber-life/51015049007/

https://books.google.com/books?id=BZQSAQAAIAAJ

https://books.google.com/books?id=2vZvAAAAMAAJ

https://www.theday.com/news/20170425/reaching-the-top-of-america/

I believe the in-depth coverage on him in the Oregonian, and multiple sources crediting him with the first in the US to reach all the tops and receiving coverage multiple times spanning years apart is an indication of notability and I feel he meets Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON

Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Although I nominated the article for deletion, I think with some further improvements it can be kept with all these sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Tentative Keep per WP:HEY. I’d love for someone else to add the sources found to the article. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Per nominator, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Anna Cymmerman

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is from her employer which lacks independence. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note. I didn't realize there was an earlier nomination in 2009 when I made this nom. Apparently un-named sources were identified at an external website during that discussion. However, the web archive url isn't loading for me so I can't see what these are...4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep – per WP:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles ("notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria") #6: she has performed numerous significant roles at several notable opera houses. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello Michael Bednarek, subject must first meet WP:GNG because notability is not inherent. dxneo (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@dxneo Michael is citing an WP:SNG which is another accepted pathway to establishing notability other than WP:GNG. This is perfectly fine, although I note that the article currently cites no independent sources supporting the SNG being cited. We still need independent sources to prove an SNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for editors to supply other sources that could establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there more sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete or userfy/draftify if Michael Bednarek plans on fixing the sourcing issues raised, but needs more time. The subject might be notable, but the referencing is too poor to verify most claims at present. PS. Polish online encyclopedia of theater has a bit of info on her, including on one award ([6]), it mentions three news pieces, but only one seems to have WP:SIGCOV: [7]. That article does call her a "star of the Łódź theater scence", and her being chosen to sing at the Olympics seems to suggest she is notable - if someone can dig for more sources, and check for possible OR in the article. Ping me if it is improved and I'll revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I mined the existing citations for a few more assertions, added 2 more sources, and removed claims that I couldn't source. Bottom line: there's very little press coverage about her, but there's no doubt that she has performed numerous leading roles at numerous opera houses. I don't accept that the Grand Theatre, Łódź, or the Elektroniczna Encyklopedia Teatru Polskiego are regarded as non-independent sources (my point above and previously). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I think I would agree with this. Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek You didn't make this claim earlier with supporting evidence. All that was in the article was the website of a theatre where the subject works which is a non-independent source. A specialized encyclopedia entry was just added by you to the article after you made your earlier keep vote. That is evidence of independent significant coverage, which is exactly what I have been asking for.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I added the encyclopedia as a reference a week ago. Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter for adding a good source to prove notability. I see now you added it on November 6. That still doesn't change the point that Michael's keep vote was made without evidence in October, and that I (nor anybody else) never referred to an encyclopedia as a non-independent source which is what Michael inferred in his last comment. FYI @Michael, the Grand Theatre, Łódź is non-independent because the subject works there. It's a pretty straight forward non-independent source. We wouldn't allow an employer's website to be used on an article on its employee for notability purposes in any other subject area. The fine arts is no exception. An encyclopedia on the other hand is clearly independent.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing to keep. Given that a specialized encyclopedia entry on the subject has been found, I am changing my vote to keep. Per WP:5P1, we model our encyclopedia off of specialized encyclopedias, and if a specialized encyclopedia has entry on the subject, we should too.4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
As you are the nominator, you might consider withdrawing it per WP:WDAFD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A withdrawal is only possible when there are no delete votes per WDAFD. Piotr voted weak delete, so a close under withdrawal is not possible.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All of the sources (Turkish is my mother-tongue, so I examined all of them.) are promotional. The page needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, Iran, and Turkey. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I agree with the nomination rationale. The references are dated closely together, are similarly worded, and do not seem to reflect independent journalism. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Seems to satisfy WP:GNG, seen coverage in numerous sources. Some recent ones do seem to be around the same timeframe but from what I can see is from reputable and acceptable news websites. There seems to be older articles as well which aren't necessarily referenced in the article, but still demonstrate notability. Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rob. H. Brodie, please read this policy. Promotional content is not allowed on Wikimedia projects. Best, Kadı Message 13:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I have read and I don't find this applicable to me especially on the 'paid contribution'. If there are promotional texts in the article I'm happy to go and correct it. I'm even happy to add things that would be deemed negative to the subject if that's important and there are sources from it. But from what I have gathered and seen I don't think the article should be deleted on the basis provided above. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to maintain articles that have acceptable sources, which I am confident this article has. Best Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, while I respect the reasoning behind the proposed deletion of Vafaei’s page, I believe the sources cited provide independent and impartial information. I see that he has been featured in many Turkish and global sources. Yashar Vafaei’s work, particularly his contributions in sustainable investment and economic development, holds significant value for society. The sources are not for promotional purposes but rather drawn from credible global sources that illustrate his impact in the business world and beyond. If there are sections that seem biased, I would be happy to assist in making necessary adjustments. I recommend preserving the page to continue offering valuable information to the public. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Youtuberhakankeles, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributing to the discussion. I was wondering if you happen to know this individual in a personal or professional context? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker, thank you for reaching out and for the warm welcome. Yes, I do know Yashar Vafaei and am familiar with his work. I’m here to contribute to this discussion to ensure that the article remains neutral and informative, following Wikipedia’s guidelines. I understand the importance of unbiased representation and would be happy to make any necessary edits to keep the content aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you for your guidance and feedback! Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - based on the headlines alone, it would appear that the best of the sources are about the company, not the person. I would not oppose an appropriate redirect. Bearian (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)

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

Recently recreated page after earlier prod, evidently with the same tags. The station does exist (the NTC pulled a Mexico and double-dipped on DXKS) and has been around a while but needs citation help urgently to meet the GNG, a problem common to Philippines radio station articles. See also title DXKS-FM (CDO). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll try another relisting. Maybe User:Vineyard93 wants to take part in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Zoé Kézako

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

Almost completely unsourced, heavily POV article. BEFORE showed no reviews or news. From what I can find, subject does not meet GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: http://www.planete-jeunesse.com/fiche-1529-zoe-kezako.html; also significant mentions here: https://www.animationmagazine.net/2021/12/people-on-the-move-teamtos-kouper-named-personality-of-the-year-milano-heads-rai-kids-more/ ("winner of the 2004 Pulcinella Award at Cartoons on the Bay and an Emmy nominee") (Emmy nomination as Best international Children's program confirmed by other sources). If judged insufficient, redirect to List of French animated television series#Comedy (listed there; with the nomination information and sources) (Also is a book series; same title) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we see a few more opinions and arguments here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Uvolit Zhoru

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

The correspondence between WP:MOVIE is not shown and is extremely doubtful.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Maryus_Vaysberg#Filmography: And revert redirect to expand page when release is confirmed; notable cast, filming that started, so opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Does it even exist? It isn't even listed in Russian Wikipedia. 128.12.122.36 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Upcoming. See sources. Feel free to create a redirect on the Russian Wikipedia if you wish. Other films by the same director have their page on this WP but not there and vice versa. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ario Nahavandi

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

I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV, probably not enough here for WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Iran, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are well, I have added more references such as (Magazine, News and more refs) to make sure each statements are supported by mentioned references. Could you please let me know if this could help to not be nominated for deletion? any feadbacks or help in case if there are still some issue with this article would be appreciated, many thanks xx Lanak20 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide links to three sources that discuss him in detail? -KH-1 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes here are the some sources that dicuss him in the details:

1 ) https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/

2) https://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/1933514 ( Moscow tonight / Party issue/ February vol2/ page 34,35,36,37 )

3) https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cm5er1zggp0o

some extra just in case:

4) https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/1652987/%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AE%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%88-%D9%BE%D8%B2-%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AE%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C

5)

https://roozaneh.net/art-culture/biography/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C/

Lanak20 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Promotional profile, probably user submitted.
Can't access the full publication, unclear what coverage it provides of the subject
About a protest song, doesn't specifically mention the subject as far as I can tell English
What appears to be a film review, doesn't mention the subject as far as I can tell English
What appears to be a promotional bio of a different individual - English

Still not seeing anything that would demonstrate SIGCOV.-KH-1 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your feadback however:

It is not a promotional website, there is not a part of website stating user can create a profile or bio. the National Diversity Awards website is not a promotional platform where individuals can create their own profiles. It is a curated, third-party site that publishes detailed nomination profiles for individuals recognized for their achievements. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies of living persons, such as WP (General Notability Guideline), accept third-party recognition and profiles published on award platforms as potential sources. This source provides coverage that is independent and detailed enough to establish some notability.
The February issue of Moscow Tonight, available on MagCloud, includes four dedicated pages about the subject. This source should meet WP guidelines, as it provides detailed coverage on the individual. The fact that the magazine is behind a paywall does not negate its validity as a source, especially since Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable sources regardless of paywalls (WP). To address your concern about access, I am happy to provide additional details if needed."
I understand there may have been a translation challenge here, as the article on BBC 'Persian' references the individual within the broader context of cultural movements. The piece mentions notable figures, including the subject, associated with influential trends in this movement. BBC Persian is a reputable source, and while the English translation may lack some nuance, the article reflects the subject’s role within a culturally significant narrative, which aligns with WP when viewed as part of their broader impact. I’m happy to clarify any specific details from the source in the original Persian to ensure accurate representation. This source, while not comprehensive on its own, does contribute valuable context alongside other supporting sources that I am preparing to further substantiate the article.
Mashregh News Article on a Protest Song (Bella Ciao and artists who sang) : While this article is not just a film review and may not solely focus on the subject, it is worth noting that WP allows for multiple sources that contribute to notability as a collective rather than needing to be individually comprehensive. This piece references the subject within a context that showcases their influence and relevance, particularly within cultural discussions, which contributes to notability even if indirectly.
Roozaneh.net Biography (Appears to Be a Different Individual): I understand the concern here. It seems this website might be confusing in English translation but i have added this as there is a connection to related page as in the article it was mention of music collaboration and some refers. I am willing to remove it from consideration and focus on sources directly pertinent to the subject. My apologies for any confusion here.

Lanak20 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to see more participation here besides the nominator and the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete "Singer, songwriter, actor, social media Influencer and product designer" - I mean, you really do have to make your mind up which you're going to be! However, subject fails WP:GNG across any/all of these. The links provided in addition to those in the article are singularly unconvincing. The scant namechecks or one-line mentions of the subject do not collectively convince me that we are anywhere near a pass of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on the article. I would like to address the concerns you raised, with reference to Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide clarity. Based on Wikipedia’s guidelines and standards, this article meets the criteria for inclusion and should not be deleted. Here are several key reasons:
1. Relevance of Multiple Roles: It’s not uncommon for Wikipedia to document individuals with multi-disciplinary careers, as this reflects the diverse nature of modern achievements. Figures such as Donald Glover and Jennifer Lopez are recognized for having multiple notable career paths. This bio reflects Ario Nahavandi’s notable roles across multiple fields, which aligns with Wikipedia's standards on verifiability and notability across multiple occupations.
2. General Notability Guideline (WP): The subject's notability is supported through the National Diversity Awards , which is a curated platform recognizing notable figures. The profile published on this platform isn’t self-authored but rather part of an established award process, lending credibility as a third-party endorsement. This source provides significant coverage of the individual’s achievements.
3. Reliability of Paywalled Sources: Wikipedia acknowledges that paywalled content is permissible, as stated in WP . The "Moscow Tonight" magazine article provides four pages dedicated to Ario Nahavandi, discussing his work and influence in detail. Although behind a paywall, this article offers depth and aligns with WP ’s requirement for significant coverage. Paywalls do not undermine a source’s validity, as Wikipedia emphasizes content reliability over accessibility.
4. Verification and Language Nuances: The Persian articles references Ario Nahavandi within the context of each lines that eas mentioned and also cultural movements, specifically his version of the protest song "Bella Ciao." This song has significant cultural relevance and is widely associated with advocacy and social justice, topics that Nahavandi’s work reportedly explores. This source establishes the subject's cultural impact and positions him within a movement. While it may not be the sole basis for notability, it provides valuable context and should be considered alongside other sources.
5. Indirect Contributions and WP : Wikipedia allows for cumulative notability, where references collectively demonstrate a subject’s influence and relevance. Although some sources provide indirect mentions, when considered together, they support the subject’s impact, especially within the Persian music scene and cultural discussions. WP does not demand each source to be exhaustive on its own; instead, they collectively establish the subject’s role within the field.
Lanak20 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Does not pass notability for musicians, I don't see any charted singles or awards... Source 15 is about a government minister speaking about another person/actress, I'm not sure what that has to do with this person. Source 2 is a promotional link, as is source 4. Source 24 is a spotify link... Nothing of substance to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback, but I feel like I’m repeating myself here and my previous responses aren’t getting through. I’ve explained the sources and how they align with Wikipedia’s guidelines multiple times now, but the same points keep being brought up without addressing what I’ve already clarified. Let me break it down again.
1. Notability for Musicians: According to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians (WP), charted singles or awards are not the only ways to prove notability. There are plenty of other paths, like independent coverage from reputable sources—which is exactly what this article has. Sources like National Diversity Awards, Moscow Tonight, and Persian articles offer solid, independent discussions about Ario Nahavandi and his work, which should count toward notability.
2. Independent Sources, Not Promotion: Calling sources like the National Diversity Awards and Moscow Tonight “promotional” doesn’t seem fair. These are third-party sources with editorial oversight, not advertisements. Just because they highlight his achievements doesn’t make them promotional—they’re providing coverage, which is what WP looks for in reliable sources. These follow the General Notability Guideline (WP) for third-party verification.
3. Government Minister Source: There seems to be some confusion about Source 15, where a government minister is talking about an actress. This source helps give cultural context—it’s not unusual to include related content for background on notable figures, especially when covering their influence in a specific cultural scene. This isn’t off-limits according to WP guidelines; it’s a way to round out the picture.
4. Spotify Link: Yes, there’s a Spotify link, but it’s only there as a supplement, not to prove notability. Tons of musician articles on Wikipedia include links to their music platforms—it’s standard practice to help readers access their work. The main argument for notability here still relies on the independent, reliable sources.
5. Following WP Guidelines with References: I’ve made sure to use references that follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. But it feels like they’re being dismissed, even though they meet WP’s standards. To show the inconsistency, there are lots of Wikipedia articles with broken or outdated references that still stay up, like Mohsen Chavoshi’s page. I could list pages like this all day, yet this article is being picked apart for sources that actually work.
6. Concerns about Paid Editing: I’m aware there are people who offer paid services to approve articles, which goes against WP’s principles. If the resistance here is because I didn’t pay someone, I’d rather the article be deleted than compromise Wikipedia’s integrity. But I’ve put in the work to follow WP’s guidelines and provide solid sources, and I just want this to be reviewed fairly and will be able to try to find another reference in case if the feadback be fair. In short, I’ve followed Wikipedia’s rules by providing reliable sources that show notability. While they may not fit one rigid definition of notability, they definitely meet WP’s flexible standards, especially for culturally relevant figures. I’d really appreciate it if my previous responses could be reviewed before the same issues keep coming up.
Thanks, and I hope we can come to a fair decision here. Lanak20 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, thank you for the input but repeating it again and again isn't helping. We're able to evaluate the sources and come to a fair decision with regards to notability. This isn't a quick YES or NO, but we review all sources against guidelines here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Simply releasing music isn't enough for notability. The acting "career" appears to be a demo tape and several small roles, which aren't notable. There seems to be nothing about the influencer or product designer as noted, implying these aren't notable. We've yet to prove this is more than an individual with a good marketing team. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I understand where you're coming from, but there’s still some misunderstanding about the significance of Ario’s work and the guidelines around notability. Let’s break it down.
1. Notability Beyond Just "Releasing Music": Yes, simply releasing music isn’t enough on its own, but that’s not the only factor here. We have multiple independent sources that discuss Ario’s impact in his field—this isn’t just about “releasing music.” Publications like National Diversity Awards and BBC Persian don’t cover everyone; they choose to feature people making a unique impact. This aligns with Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP), which don’t require an artist to have charted singles or awards if there’s other significant coverage.
2. Acting Career: Ario’s acting career goes beyond “demo tapes” and small roles. He’s participated in multiple verified productions, and his acting has received independent coverage. Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for actors state that an actor can be considered notable if they've participated in productions or performances that have received media attention, even if they’re not lead roles in blockbuster movies. It’s not just about playing a leading part; it’s about building a portfolio and being recognized within the industry, which Ario has done. Independent coverage discussing his involvement in these projects supports his notability as an emerging actor.
3. Influencer & Product Designer: I understand that his work as an influencer and designer may seem unconventional in terms of traditional “celebrity” roles. However, these aspects are part of his public persona and career, with coverage that explores his influence and contributions. For example, his work on immersive concert experiences is notable as a unique innovation, which aligns with notability standards if covered by reliable sources. The guidelines support recognition of multi-faceted careers that involve creative influence, especially when such roles are supported by independent sources that verify their impact.
4. Good Marketing Team: I understand the concern about this being “good marketing,” but the coverage here isn’t promotional content—it’s independent reporting from reputable sources. The National Diversity Awards and BBC Persian don’t cover everyone; they feature people making a significant, recognized impact. This isn’t just about publicity; it’s about being recognized by third-party sources. Ario's notability fits within Wikipedia’s guidelines for emerging figures whose work and influence are acknowledged by independent sources.
5. Consistency in Applying Guidelines: I’ve genuinely made an effort to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, with reliable sources that provide real coverage—not promotional links. It feels inconsistent to dismiss these achievements when Wikipedia has plenty of articles on individuals with fewer sources or less independent coverage. Let’s make sure we’re applying notability guidelines equally across all entries.
Finally, I want to emphasize that Wikipedia is based on objective standards and guidelines, not on individual opinions or assumptions. You can’t disregard or downplay someone's notability just because it doesn’t align with your personal perspective. I’ve provided sources that meet Wikipedia’s standards, and instead of relying on subjective judgments, I’d ask that we evaluate this entry according to Wikipedia’s actual guidelines.

If there's still disagreement, let's address it with clear references to the guidelines, not personal viewpoints. We should avoid making assumptions about intent or credibility based on preference, and instead, keep the focus on Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and verifiability rather than personal assumptions and opinions. 212.132.245.64 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And finally, you still haven’t answered my question: Have you scrutinized the countless other Wikipedia articles with broken reference links, like the one for Mohsen Chavoshi and many many more? Would you like me to provide endless examples of articles with references that can’t even be opened? How did those articles get approved? Did they pay Wikipedia editors? that's why?

Is my article, which follows Wikipedia’s guidelines with reliable, verifiable references, getting unfairly dismissed because I haven’t paid anyone? It feels like I’m facing subjective opinions here rather than an objective review based on Wikipedia’s own standards for notability and would love to speak to somone who is incharge above people with personal unfair judgments feadback which even don't know about wikipedia guidliness. 212.132.245.64 (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Lanak20, please do not edit logged out of your account. And, as far as I can see, you've posted the same lengthy comments 4 times in this discussion. It would be wise for another participant to "hat" your remarks as they have gotten repetitive and looks like they've been generated using AI tools.

And please stop with the aspersions of paid editing, 99.99% of editors on Wikipedia are volunteers (and the paid editors are self-identified) so you are making unfair accusations against the community by accusing them of bias through paid editing. Please stop stating this and, in general, I think you have put forth your argument multiple times so you don't need to participate here any longer unless it is to address a question asked of you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ask me to not respond when you are giving incorrect feedback directly to my article.

Let’s be clear: I’m not accusing all editors of paid bias, but when I see countless articles with broken links and questionable notability stay up while mine is under relentless scrutiny, it raises valid questions. Mentioning the offers I've received for paid publishing isn’t an “aspersions” tactic—it’s a reality check on the inconsistencies here.

If my comments are repeated, it’s because critical points are being ignored. I expect this process to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, not personal biases. If my article meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, it should be treated fairly and not dismissed based on opinions.

The first editor’s main question was, "Can you provide links to three sources that discuss him in detail?" I provided three, with the first two being strong by any guideline standard. If the third source (BBC News) is the issue here, I’m willing to replace it with another that meets the criteria. However, there’s no reason not to accept the first two, as they clearly follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.

And still, none of you have addressed my question about broken links in approved articles, like Mohsen Chavoshi. Another example is Benyamin Bahadori which only has five references, four of which are irrelevant to the content, with just one barely covering the subject. If those articles are approved with weak sources, why is mine, with multiple valid references, getting unfairly judged?

How many more do you want me to lind up for you?

It seems the “99.99% of editors” are doing quite a selective job if articles with broken, irrelevant, or minimal references can pass while valid, guideline-compliant sources for mine are dismissed for some reason which is not paid to get published apparently. Lanak20 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Lanak20, there are close to 7 million articles on Wikipedia. We don't have a system of regularly evaluating all of them. We evaluate articles that have been nominated for deletion through one of our deletion processes (CSD, PROD and AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.). If you see articles that you don't believe are in line with Wikipedia's standards for notability and sourcing, feel free to nominate them yourself for a deletion discussion. It's up to editors to take care of this but, like I said, we are all volunteers and we work as much or as little as an editor wants and contributes to the areas they want to contribute to. This is no one's "job" where we have to meet a job description's expectations. And if anyone has offered to help you in exchange for money, it's a well-known scam where the person takes your money and either does nothing or does a terrible job. Delete those requests that come your way or forward them to WMF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, but let’s set some things straight. I’m fully aware Wikipedia runs on volunteer contributions, and I have great respect for the countless hours invested by the community. But this does not change the fact that when an article is nominated for deletion, it’s fair to expect decisions based on Wikipedia’s guidelines, not selective judgment or dismissal of legitimate sources—especially when those sources align with notability criteria.

You mentioned the system isn’t designed to continually assess existing articles, yet the same notability standards should apply universally to those currently in consideration. It raises valid concerns when comparable articles with weaker sourcing are accepted, while mine, with detailed third-party recognition, is repeatedly undermined.

Regarding paid offers, I'm well aware of scams, and I’m not naïve enough to pay for services that violate Wikipedia’s ethics. However, pointing out this reality is not an "aspersions" tactic but a legitimate concern. My request is simple: hold this article to the same standards consistently applied to others, and evaluate it fairly, based on content and verifiable sources—not assumptions, nor speculation about the individual or their work. Lanak20 (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Quite simply fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
This article meets both WP and WP notability guidelines.
1. Independent Coverage: The article includes multiple independent sources that provide detailed coverage of Ario Nahavandi’s work, not just brief mentions, meeting WP . For instance, National Diversity Awards and Moscow Tonight offer in-depth perspectives on his achievements.
2. NSINGER Compliance: WP allows for notability even without charted singles, provided there is significant media coverage. These sources fulfill this requirement by highlighting his impact in the arts.
This aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines, and I ask that the assessment be reconsidered based on these points. Lanak20 (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)