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 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity	20 days ago	4	9775	1589.03
Global Language Monitor (2nd nomination)	18 days ago	4	8331	1450.71
Tararam	16 days ago	3	4865	1411.69
Sandeep Johri (2nd nomination)	12 days ago	0	3690	1317.32
The J-Gos	12 days ago	1	4407	1257.86
Kieran McNulty	14 days ago	3	7509	1216.77
The Black Community of Camden, NJ	14 days ago	3	5002	1210.62
Louis Pendleton	13 days ago	2	5850	1189.94
Aslam Chowdhury	14 days ago	4	7935	1172.52
High Commission of Malaysia, London	13 days ago	3	3535	1141.97
Espu Kola	13 days ago	3	5243	1135.35
Nileena Abraham	12 days ago	2	4597	1121.02
Annette Jones (architect)	12 days ago	3	5651	1101.14
Illinois Farm Bureau	12 days ago	2	9855	1098.86
Priya Hassan	11 days ago	2	4755	1094.28
Davide Lombardi	11 days ago	2	7413	1087.75
Special Assistance Resource Teacher (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	4	6127	1072.01
Industry Leaders	9 days ago	1	4552	1060.38
Charlotte Sartre	11 days ago	3	5696	1039.51
Fibras Industriales S.A.	8 days ago	1	3099	993.27
Wuzhen Initiative	10 days ago	2	3710	985.58
Phil Gilman	10 days ago	2	3061	980.37
Nerdy Prudes Must Die	9 days ago	1	12234	966.04
Upper All's Well Cave	7 days ago	0	3064	963
Magazines + TV Screens Tour	10 days ago	3	5184	954.12

List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity

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

With the number of planets detected by radial velocity growing more and more every month, it will be very difficult to maintain this list. It barely get updates and views and has little utility, anyone searching for radial velocity planets could search the NASA Exoplanet Archive instead, which is far more complete than this list. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:24, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by radial velocity, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The issue is this: we have a list that is forgotten and incomplete to the point of being unreliable. To resolve this, we either fill the list or delete it. I'll do what's easiest as the losses will be minimal. Lack of completeness can still be an argument for exclusion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue. Even if we are going to include notable discoveries only, at least 637 notable planets exist, this list has 354, so 284 planets to add, quite a lot. The effort to fix this list should be instead be directed to other activities, such as writing a new article or updating popular, widely-viewed ones. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Again: all concerns you bring up are valid, but they are to be met by editing, and in this case policy explicitly says we should not delete. We indeed have a huge amount of incomplete lists, which is only normal. It's not like we have a deadline. cyclopia ^speak! 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I really wonder if 637 notable planets exist. Almost all of these planet articles are stubs with mostly stats from a database. I can't find any with a citation that's directly about any particular planet. Wizmut (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
(copied from the reply to the same comment in the the other analogous AfD) Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 10:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date range. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough evidence to show a solution that was clearly vetted by the community.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - As far as I can see this is a pass for WP:LISTN based on multiple academic papers discussing extrasolar planets detected by this method as a group (e.g., this, this). The other arguments seems addressable by ordinary editing to ,e.g., limit the list only to those planets that are notable. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Why not rename something like List of earliest exoplanets detected by radial velocity with a cutoff date? Hyperbolick (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
What would be the source for the list inclusion criteria? More sensible to limit it to items that are notable or confirmed. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Several analysis of this company in Gscholar, [1], [2] were the first two that came up. They seem like RS, in Russian I think. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Some book mentions of their world language clock [3]. Sounds interesting, too bad it's not around anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Both articles have the same (2 out of 3) authors. If the organization still existed we could see if these folks "happen" to be directly associated with it. Also, the second one is really poor in content - reads like an undergraduate paper, really. I'm not willing to see these as significant. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication." Lamona (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 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, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Hebrew Wikipedia article has 27 references. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - This is not "mostly unreferenced," , furthermore, it should be noted that notability is not related to the current state of the article. As Left Guide noted, the Hebrew article has plenty of sources. The topic meets the threshold of notability. Whizkin (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Have you actually seen the Hebrew sources? "SAP Israel concluded a year"??? "SanDisk celebrates Bar Mitzvah"??? Every time they've played at a corporate shindig? Every corporate campaign that uses them? The article about "a unique internet campaign for Cellcom" doesn't even MENTION Tararam? No SIGCOV, no hit record, no chart placement, no major tour, no major media recognition. There's literally nothing here beyond a local ensemble often hired by tech corporates to play at their junkets. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 23 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

weak delete per Alexandermcnabb. Article is largely unsourced as well as having no real notable event to make them notable enough for a wikipedia article. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sandeep Johri

AfDs for this article:

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

References do not demonstrate significant coverage by multiple sources. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, California, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletionism is a cancer that must be opposed at all costs. Speedy Keep 99.122.52.226 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The J-Gos

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

I do not think that this hyperlocal band meets NCREATIVE or GNG. I see one review in a hyperlocal newpaper, and little else of substance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, we have many critical reviews in local press (many fromThe Argonaut in San Francisco and Venice Vanguard and Los Angeles Village View in Los Angeles) which arguably meet WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:NBAND. On the other hand, the coverage is all to events which could be seen as too local (ie small venues, etc), and we should maybe not consider it significant on that basis. However, there's also the fact that the band randomly did make it on Papua New Guinea's national music chart which would mean it passes criteria 2 of WP:NBAND. In the end this throws it over to the keep side for me.4meter4 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
4meter4, following up belatedly. I tried to verify the claim of charting in Papua New Guinea, and did not succeed. For an otherwise somewhat-implausible-sounding claim like that, it would be good if an established non-SPA editor had succeeded in verifying (although of course sources are not required to be online). Perhaps you found it, or have other thoughts on the matter? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest asking for comment by someone with access to newspapers.com to check it out, because that paper’s archives are accessible through that site. Unfortunately, newspapers.com is no longer available through the Wikipedia Library. Given that the other sources have checked out added by the same user, I am inclined to AGF, and believe it is likely true and accurately represents the source.4meter4 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: If we could find confirmation of the charted song, that would help, I could go either way, weakly notable, but not enough for me to !vote yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[4] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [5][6]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. 149 publications in google scholar seems to be a significant number, and his citation count is high for a low citation field. I think this would probably meet criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to be around the average professor in this area. Here are the Scopus stats for McNulty and his 80 coauthors with ≥15 papers:

Total citations: average: 3110, median: 1975, McNulty: 1121.

Total papers: 70, 53, 46.

h-index: 26, 23, 19.

Top 5 papers: 1st: 399, 245, 142. 2nd: 258, 197, 85. 3rd: 186, 144, 68. 4th: 150, 121, 62. 5th: 128, 100, 58.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. He got a little press for his analysis (not discovery) of Homo floresiensis but he's not even cited in that article (unlike his coauthor on the analysis Karen Baab). I don't think this is enough for WP:PROF#C1 and if we're going to try to claim WP:GNG-based notability based on this then I think it falls short of passing WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The Black Community of Camden, NJ

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

This appears to be a nonnotable topic cobbled together from discussions of Black organizations in Camden. There doesn't appear to be a "The Black Community of Camden" that this is talking about. Appears to be WP:SYNTH. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Although the original article text was more a list of organizations, I have added some references discussing African-American history in the city, and it seems like there could be enough to sustain an article. This is not even touching more modern history, as there seems to be quite a bit of coverage around Camden's police department and its restructuring and how that relates to Black Lives Matter protests. I do agree that the sections focusing on organizations could be trimmed or deleted. ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete/undo split Yes, Camden, New Jersey, was way too long and detailed in many sections, with paragraphs about non-notable non-profits, youth groups, and restaurants that do not typically have this type of coverage in other city articles. But that does not mean this content should have just been split into other pages that keep the same problems. The same goes for Redevelopment of Camden, New Jersey, Arts and entertainment in Camden, New Jersey, Hispanic and Latino community of Camden, New Jersey, and other pages this user just split from the main article. I suggest undoing/remerging all of these edits and then trimming the outdated news, irrelevant name-dropping, and other unencyclopedic details (there is a lot though). Reywas92^Talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Draftify this article and the other ones listed. Many of these are probably notable topics, but I agree that they are unready for the mainspace in their current state. For example, I found an article on the Black power movement in Camden and one on redevelopment. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Selective merge to African Americans in New Jersey.-KH-1 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been significantly improved since the time of nomination by ForsythiaJo. Not really seeing a need to merge or draftify this page. Meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Louis Pendleton

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

Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
Then within the past 24 hours, an anonymous IP vastly expanded it with a lot of additional information that may have been gleaned partly from private insider knowledge, without adding even one new source to support any of the new information, and there's still nothing in the newer information that would clinch free passage of WP:NPOL if the article is still referenced entirely to just one local obituary.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived media coverage from the Shreveport area than I've got can find improved sourcing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a local obituary for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Vast section and paragraphs are mostly uncited and includes only one reference. and also subject is notable for one event, per WP:1E it doesn't fulfill significant coverage criteria.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. He seems to be an important local figure in the Civil Rights Movement in Shreveport both according to his obituary and his inclusion on a black history media page (click on his article) This is also this news article (while from a local channel website; was a reposting of a CNN piece) which called him the first African-American dentist in Shreveport. He is also mentioned in this U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report. Altogether, I think there is a credible claim to notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"Credible claim to notability" or not, we'd have to see a lot more reliable sourcing than has been brought to bear before a notability claim would turn into a notability lock. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There are two solid sources with in-depth coverage between the CNN piece and his obituary, and some minor ones pointing towards wider notability. Collectively I think this demonstrates notability. Ideally we would have a third strong source per WP:THREE; hence why the "weak keep" as opposed to keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Two sources isn't enough for GNG. If a person doesn't have "inherent" notability (e.g. holding an NPOL-passing office) that would require us to keep an article irrespective of its current quality of sourcing, then it takes quite a bit more than just two pieces of GNG-worthy coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" hump. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 19 November 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} 23:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Aslam Chowdhury

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not meeting WP ANYBIOP and WP:POLITICIAN. Deleted 9 years ago per A7 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

What is required to be included in this article for it to come out of the deletion process?

The individual is a high profile politician of Bangladesh Nationalist Party who has been arbitrarily imprisoned by a toppled regime for 8 years. Intlctzn (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list of long media coverage regarding the individual which spans over a decade.

"Bangladeshi Dissident Aslam Chowdhury released from prison". Foreign Policy Blogs. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Morshed Khan, Afroza Abbas, Aslam Chowdhury round off BNP success on appeals". www.unb.com.bd. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP appoints three more members to Chairperson's Advisory Council"."Bangladesh politician arrested for 'Israel handshake'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury walks out of jail after 8 yrs -". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Bangladeshi Opposition Official Arrested for Alleged Contacts With Mossad"."Bangladesh opposition official arrested over Israel meeting"."BNP's Aslam on seven-day remand | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel". Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy arrested over 'meeting' Mossad agent [ Tritiyo Matra News ]". www.tritiyomatra.com. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Aslam arrested in Dhaka over 'Israel plot' to overthrow Hasina regime". BNP’s Aslam arrested in Dhaka over ‘Israel plot’ to overthrow Hasina regime. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Hannan says RAW released Aslam's photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media". BNP’s Hannan says RAW released Aslam’s photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Govt stages drama over Aslam's meeting with Israeli leader: BNP"."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury gets HC bail". The Business Standard. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy released on bail". daily-sun. Retrieved 2024-11-11. Intlctzn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Subsections all can be under controversy, A bio is not notable just for 1 event hence fail WP:Bio, You might choose to add any notable things he has done in the future. Tesleemah (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Added more information. Intlctzn (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Nominator for this deletion quotes WP:POLITICIAN to delete this article but per aforesaid guidelines, politicians who have held office^[1] or received significant press coverage (as politician^[2]^[3] / business head^[4]) are considered notable. Main article's political career section seems to fulfill this criteria.

(if) other concerns on quality of article can however be raised on main article page and improvements invited, this should not warrant a deletion though Nisingh.8 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep.

Articles for people of identical position exists e.g. Ruhul Kabir Rizvi. 38.39.204.206 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have deleted, in the past 10 years, thousands of articles about diplomats, political party officials, losing candidates, and activists, up to and including candidates for the United States Senate, for lack of significant coverage. Only members of parliament or the equivalent are automatically included here: not political party officials. It’s about as strong a consensus as you can imagine on Wikipedia. If you haven’t ever read Wikipedia, you might not know that, but that’s not our problem, because in 2024 everybody knows that. We are not Ballotpedia or Truth Social. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The individual is an important candidate for upcoming Bangladesh general election. 38.39.204.206 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. While normally this politician would be deleted under WP:NPOL, there is international coverage of this particular politician's arrest and imprisonment. This clearly puts this particular person beyond the normal scope of someone in this type of post. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Advisor, chair, secretary... These are all functionary positions, not meeting political notability. I don't see notability, the sourcing isn't helping matters. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

High Commission of Malaysia, London

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

Article based on a primary source and directory listing. No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Diplomatic premises are rarely individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London where it is mentioned, as has been done for every other non-notable embassy and high commission in London brought to AfD or PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Malaysia–United Kingdom relations. @Thryduulf the embassy is also on the List of diplomatic missions of Malaysia. I think we could actually save all the content on the relations page as a merge target which would be better than redirecting to one of several possible list pages. 4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Espu Kola

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep per invalid deletion rationale, populated places do not fall under GNG. Unless you can elaborate on your reasoning? Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment There were censuses in Iran in 2011 and 2016 which should give us more up-to-date info rather than the cited 2006 one. However, I couldn't find any information in their census data site about this specific settlement, possibly I didn't find the correct sheet though. --Gilc (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at User talk:JJPMaster regarding concerns that were not addressed at the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - I don't think either the nomination nor the keep !votes engaged with the essential issue here, which is that this place quite possibly does not exist as an actual community. The reason being that Iran counts its census at rural locations called Abadi. These are simply census-taking locations, and need not correspond to actual villages/towns (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't), and are essentially the Iranian version of census tracts (something explicitly excluded by WP:GEOLAND). Carlossuarez46 went through the 2006 Iranian census making these articles at an incredible fast rate, without bothering to check whether these places actually existed as anything more than a census-taking location. Many of them were obviously wells, pumps, farms, shops, bridges etc. and have been deleted. For example, on the day he created this article, he created at least 445 other articles also about Iranian "villages" (I say "at least" because at least 20,000 of the articles they created have since been deleted and the deleted articles won't show up in this search). Especially since this place doesn't appear to have been included in later censuses (like Gilc I can't find it), it's very likely that it wasn't a real village or community of any sort. =

I've tried a bunch of searches, using the name in the article, the title in Farsi, and the alternative romanisation of "Esbu Kola", both generally on google, and also in GeoNames and OpenStreetMap, and whilst I do find sourcing for Esbu Kola, Savadkuh, Esbu Kola, Babol and Esbu Kola, Sari, I cannot find anything confirming the existence of this place.

TL;DR - Without any actual location it is impossible to confirm the existence or otherwise of this place as an actual populated community (rather than just a bridge/shop/factory/farm/whatever where the population was counted) and so it should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to recreation with better sourcing, etc. The problems FOARP points out are well-known (or should be, to frequenters of geographical AfDs). Disappearing from subsequent census records makes me think that the single occurrence in the 2006 census is insufficient to substantiate this as a real populated place. Choess (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Nileena Abraham

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

Despite winning an award - which many translators appear to win and that does not inherently make them eligible for a Wikipedia article – I am concerned that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. The citations are all primary or unreliable and I can't find any other reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way.

Please assume good faith in this nomination. It's nothing personal! Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
~~Comment~~. Would having been the Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji Professor of Bengali at the International School of Dravidian Linguistics, Thiruvananthapuram count as a named chair for the purposes of meeting WP:PROF? Also is the Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M considered completely unreliable? (Although the Google Books link given is incorrect, the subject does appear on pp. 7–8.[7]) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I would find it very odd for someone with only Master's degrees to hold a C5-qualifying named chair. And the school isn't even notable itself! JoelleJay (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
JoelleJay I think it's easy to become very US/UK centric with these named chairs.

On the question of GNG, I found a substantial material on Abraham in JSTOR .5325/complitstudies.53.2.0359, which has substantive (~3pp) coverage of her work translating Arogyaniketan by Tarashankar Bandyopadhyay, with some bio material. Considered together with the award, and Who's Who entry, and given that the above source is talking about work in 1961 and not in English, I feel that further expert research offline by someone who speaks the relevant languages is likely to uncover more material, so I'm going with keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Espresso Addict who has has convinced me that this person meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Annette Jones (architect)

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

An orphan article. An unremarkable career that does not meet WP:ARCHITECT. Source 1 is merely a registration database, sources 3 and 5 are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Not seeing a notification of the creator, MurielMary, who might be able to explain why they believed notability requirements were met. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, LibStar, please post an AFD notification to User:MurielMary as you should have when you listed this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Passes criteria 4c of WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV per the source by Cox and Women in New Zealand Architecture: A Literature Review in Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand. This latter journal highlights that Jones was specifically featured in prominent exhibitions in New Zealand women architects and was featured prominently in the November-December 1993 issue of Architecture New Zealand magazine.4meter4 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep meets criteria 1 of the architect notability criteria: the person is regarded as an important figure, as evidenced by inclusion in Cox's work. MurielMary (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Whilst Elizabeth Cox's source goes to GNG the source on it's own isn't enough to establish notability as the rest of the sources are non-independent or non-RS. There doesn't even seem to be mention of anything she's designed, which suggests she isn't notable too. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

To add: if there is sigcov of her work that'd go towards coverage of her and might sway my vote depending on how much and how in depth it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a really difficult one because I can't find any information at all on her in a BEFORE search that isn't primary or even LinkedIn. The Auckland Library does have three items related to her architectural work. The literature review above only mentions her twice but says there was a topic box dedicated to her in a 1993 magazine, and the Cox book highlights many female architects. My overall sense is we haven't currently demonstrated she's notable enough for an article, and the article as currently written doesn't show she's clearly notable, but in the big grey void of deletion she's not completely non-notable either. Another source would go a long way here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Illinois Farm Bureau

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

WP:BEFORE reveals no ostensible notability. Article is almost exclusively unsourced and written by the organization themselves (user 'Ilfb1916' clearly violates WP:ISU and implies this is the subject itself), being functionally a billboard instead of a resource with any encyclopedic merit. IP editor who removed PROD did so under the justification of "Useful links and relevance due to member and partner organizations", but this is complete nonsense as it pertains to notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, this is an interesting kettle of fish. On the one hand, we would presumably have a clear example of what WP:BRANCH was intended for; failing to find sources outside of the branch unit's area of operation, we would redirect to the parent organization. On the other hand, on this very day the American Farm Bureau Federation kicked the Illinois Farm Bureau out of the federation over a membership/business dispute, and as of December the state bureau will not have a parent organization, litigation and backroom dealing pending. I don't see any WP:SIGCOV of the organization in non-WP:TRADES publications separate from this dispute, and that coverage is all in agricultural trade publications and local news outlets in small Illinois markets. In the absence of an WP:NORG pass and without an appropriate WP:BRANCH redirect target, I'd have to !vote delete. Open to an WP:IAR redirect to American Farm Bureau Federation too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment – Uh... Wow. I was not expecting this to take that direction. The WP:BEFORE I'd done for this organization was two days ago, so this wasn't even on my radar when I nominated it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. According to the NPR story given already above the IFB is the largest insurer of farms in the state of Illinois. It's a significant company with a lengthy history. There is significant coverage in the following including a book about the company:

Nancy K. Berlage. "Organizing the Farm Bureau: Family, Community, and Professionals, 1914-1928" Agricultural History, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 406-437 (32 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3745183
Farmers Helping Farmers: The Rise of the Farm and Home Bureaus, 1914-1935 (2016, Louisiana State University Press)
Dan Leifel and Norma Haney. The Diamond Harvest: A History of the Illinois Farm Bureau (Bloomington: Illinois Agricultural Association, 1990).
Cynthia Clampitt. Mid- west Maize: How Corn Shaped the U.S. Heartland (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015).
Additionally JSTOR has 240 hits when searching on the "Illinois Farm Bureau" and there are more than 9,000 hits in PROQUEST with lots of SIGCOV news coverage across many decades. Sourcing and WP:ORGCRIT is not an issue here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts on these sources:

The first two (the Agricultural History article and the LSU Press book) are both by the same author, Nancy Berlage. Collectively these would count as one source (since they are not intellectually independent of each other).
Dan Leifel and Norma Maney both worked for the Illinois Farm Bureau for decades, Leifel as general counsel and Maney as an executive assistant. Their history of the IFB cannot be considered an independent source.
Can you point to what in the Clampitt book refers to the Illinois Farm Bureau? I can't access the text but the snippets available via Google Books indicate it's only index mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. Would be happy to be proven wrong if you can share how Clampitt discusses the subject. (If it was pulled from this Illinois historiography article, it's clear the author is talking about the Maney and Leifel book, not saying Clampitt covered the IFB in her book: Agriculture remains a critical part of the Illinois economy. A recent centennial history of the Illinois Farm Bureau offers a broad look at state agriculture including the post World War II period. Cynthia Clampitt wrote a history of midwestern corn production that includes work on Illinois.)
The "NPR" story I linked above is actually a local radio story from an NPR affiliate and doesn't pass the WP:AUD test.
I paged through many of the JSTOR listings and didn't find any additional WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the Berlage article above, they all appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.

Based on this analysis, I see only one WP:SIRS source to pass WP:NORG. Open to reviewing more if you can supply additional examples. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

weak keep: The history from the ProQuest article is fine, this talks about the Bureau [8] as well. just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Question @Oaktree b: Where does the dissertation talk about the IFB? I trust you that it does (because this seems extraordinarily thorough), but this document doesn't have a full download, and what small portion of it is available is not Ctrl+F-able. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, I access it at work, I'm at home now, with no access... From what I remember, it was how scientists either with or working for the farm bureau helped develop new strains of corn. I can pull this one up in the Wikipedia Library above [9], basically a 100 year history of the bureau from the Illinois Heritage magazine. I think it should be an acceptable source. Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Some coverage about a legal dispute with the Bureau and the national federation [10]... This has a ton of hits in Gnews, but most are smaller news outlets or farmer news information sites... Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Priya Hassan

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

I created Draft:Priya Hassan and despite it being well sourced, it was rejected at AfC. Now a different user, recreated the draft topic but as an article albeit with barely any sources and only 1 reliable source. The draft was deleted but I requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. All of the sources on the draft were interviews mostly.

Unneccesary AfD, I put a PROD on the draft but creator removed it. Likely not notable as a director due to lack of wide spread non interview (primary) sources. If this article needs to be kept, it needs to be merged with the draft. The draft had many sources from here [11], many of which relate to the production of the films themselves, not her. DareshMohan (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: and merge the Draft into it (that was deleted at the time of creation. However, why was DareshMohan's draft rejected?). She meets WP:DIRECTOR in my view; the two films she directed seem notable enough. She does qualify for a page. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The only reasons I can think of was that the film Bindaas Hudugi wasn't linked in the draft, the film Jambada Hudugi itself is in dire need of more sources (and given its lowkey release, the 100 days claim seems doubtful [12]) and the lack of article for Smuggler despite having five sources. Bindaas Hudugi also running for hundred days is doubtful (in which and how many theaters? [13]). Main reason is all sources are about films and not about her itself, but to be fair she didn't do that many films. DareshMohan (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: suggest merging with Draft:Priya Hassan as the draft had better sources that seem to pass WP:NACTOR. --Shiv989 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Davide Lombardi

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace. It's mostly sourced with press releases. A WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Engineering, and Italy. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV (barely). There definitely needs to be some serious pruning of bad promotional sources and writing, reformatting of the article, editing for encyclopedic tone, etc. However, there are four articles among the references which are independent significant coverage about Davide Lombardi; three of which are in the LightSoundJournal, which is a professional publication for light and audio engineers, and one of which is from an Italian media source. He works as a sound engineer for notable artists, so I am leaning on the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4 That's a valid point; however, a reminder to anyone else reading this that Lombardi doesn't inherit notability from the people he works with. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
His notability comes through his work within his business. From the references you can see he is one of the most successful people in his own business, hence the amount of interviews and big Artists names that employ him for major projects, similar to most articles with notable knowledge, but yet not in the mainstream of press like TV stars. if that makes sense? Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 Getting interviewed and working with big stars don't mean you qualify for a Wikipedia article (or, to speak Wikipedian, whether or not you're "notable). Of course, whether or not you qualify is separate from whether or not you're doing important work. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
This is the point. The idea is to make notable to the mainstream, who is already notable, but doing a different job from music/movie stars or similars. I agree working with big Artists doesn't mean to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but simply proves his knowledge and notable position within business. There are many articles that are in similar position (studio/live sound engineers, producers, musicians). As example, looking at Antony King sound engineer Wikipedia article, who has similar (and probably less) references from the same independent coverage. This is good to expand knowledge of live sound engineering, as people like me that loves concerts and understands basics about audio, appreciates and follows what some of these people are capable to create amazing live events for us all. thank you for the discussion. Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 I've gone ahead and nominated the Antony King article for deletion as well; as I said in the nomination, at the very least, the article may need to be shortened significantly, and at most, deleted.

This is why people are advised to not point out that other articles exist; the "other articles" they end up pointing out usually aren't that great, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete They are all interviews - and in trade media, at that. The other sources are blogs or references to events where the subject has worked. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. it is good to point out that as well as interviews, there are dedicated articles to Davide Lombardi and they are all from independent significant coverage Worldwide, USA, UK, Germany Italy to name the most relevant ones. We can see on Wikipedia similar subjects with less references from similar sources. Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably worth to mention his notoriety is acclaimed by being an international award winner from ProsoundNews, while also nominated twice from TPi Awards from TPiMagazine, by MondialeMedia. They are both two of the most prestigious international prizes in audio engineering. Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Special Assistance Resource Teacher

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating as last AfD was no consensus. No significant coverage in gnews, gbooks and Australian database Trove. Most of the sources are primary like minister's announcements and government sources. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. In addition to the offline sources in the article and the additional materials provided in the first AFD, there is some significant coverage in this journal article: [14]. I'm also seeing a bunch of Australian education journals and magazines covering the topic in 1980s publications in google books, but they are only available in snippet view. From what I have been able to find, this seems like it was a major education initiative in the 1980s in Australia with a thousand teaching positions created under this title and an associated training program in order to work in that position. Seems like a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge this overlaps too substantially with Special Assistance Program (Australian education) to have two separate articles; both talk about the program and teacher roles/trainings in the program. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The issue is the article does not present a worldwide view. – The Grid (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
How does it meet notability guidelines? LibStar (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if @The Grid is thinking about a teacher who teaches kids who are struggling in school (every place has its own name for this job), rather than a single, specific program in a single, specific place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Article would benefit from additional references. Rockycape (t • c •g)
- Just so you know, this article already cites 11 sources, which is more than 80% of Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Article is notable to the history of Education in the state of Victoria. But maybe the creator of the article should be included? If anyone would know the proper significance of the article it would be him and he would give a unique perspective to the consensus. He is still active, with his last edit being on 11 November 2024. I think consensus should be postponed until his perspective is added to the consensus. I have reached out to him via his talk page [15]. 2024 is Underway (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Industry Leaders

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

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Draftify. The show seems clearly notable as an established broadcast TV program. The fact that the actual content of the show might be fluffy business cheerleading seems to be influencing the nomination, and it shouldn’t, that has nothing to do with the notability of the show.

The fact that this article is fluffy cheerleading however, is relevant, and this article isn’t ready to be public in its current form, hence the nomination. It will need an eventual source analysis but that’s premature until the article is NPOV.

When that happens, the analysis of sources should be mindful that this is media, and coverage of media within other media tends to follow different conventions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete The sourcing here is very poor indeed. Tangential sources are used to prop up statements about companies mentioned in the article, bulking up the overall source count but adding nothing to the very scanty notability of this show. So we have a lot of content like "It has been credited with helping businesses gain exposure and recognition, as seen with companies like Core9" sourced to the Core9 blog. And this is by no means atypical. Sources 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are TV listings (and by no means unique in this - it's just wearying picking through the 79 sources in this article - almost all of which are tangential, non-RS, listings or sourced to the show itself. There's literally nothing there, the whole article's SYNTH, OR and in short a man of straw. And once again, we have descended into poetry... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Charlotte Sartre

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources that shows notability. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bibliographies. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify - Doesn't entirely establish notability. Needs better sources and better info. Too many red links, suggesting that not notable
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep She is the subject of a number of profiles including Las Vegas Weekly, Jezebel, and Paper. She's also discussed in several academic sources as seen from a Google Scholar search: [16]. I think there is enough to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: There is a mix of moderate and trivial mentions, from databases or entertainment platforms that focus on her work rather than her broader impact. However, given the combination of in-depth interviews, mainstream coverage (Stern), and critical industry coverage from Las Vegas Weekly, Adult DVD Talk, the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, California, and Nevada. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Draftify. Not seeing a keep on sources now there. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Here are two articles from the Daily Beast which detail Sartre: How Porn Made These Women Feel Empowered: ‘It Gave Me a New Sense of Confidence’ and The Rise of Video Conferencing Quarantine Porn. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Fibras Industriales S.A.

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

I am unable to find anything approaching significant coverage for this company, whose article was unsourced since its creation in 2006 until a a dubious source was added a few days ago. PROD was contested. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Possibly selective merge/redirect to fishing net? As a major manufacturer of fishing nets a brief one sentence mention there might be appropriate as an WP:ATD. Otherwise fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to see whether support is for Merge, Redirect or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Wuzhen Initiative

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

Likely violates WP:NPOV. Does not appear to meet notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildfireupdateman (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and China. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Selective Merge to World Internet Conference#Summits#2nd World Internet Conference per WP:ATD. On its own not independently notable, but this was the end product of the 2nd World Internet Conference so it is reasonably covered there. The secondary sources that are still accessible can be used to verify content, and whoever does the merge can remove any overly promotional content in order to comply with WP:NPOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. I'm also skeptical of deletion rationales that include phrases like "does not appear" or "seems like" which may indicate a lack of BEFORE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge per 4meter4's comment. Encoded Talk 💬 14:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Phil Gilman

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only primary sources and IMDB supplied. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: This subject has won the London Classic darts tournament and British Open, two prestigious winnings with the look of things. This article could be kept on this basis alone, but if anyone finds a slight coverage, then this should be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep- For winning the prestigious British Open in 1992 Chikwendummesonma (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

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

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [17] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.

@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [18]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [19]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Upper All's Well Cave

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

Clearly nonotable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The content and image are worth keeping if minimal; I think these should be merged to some larger article in my opinion. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What should be the merge target?

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Magazines + TV Screens Tour

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tour that fails WP:NTOUR. G11 and BLAR has been tried before. Notability-tagged for 11 years. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Ireland, Portugal, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per above, doesn't meet WP:GNG for an article in its own right and only has a passing mention on the Union J article, so don't think a redirect is necessary. Orange sticker (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Here are some reviews of the tour: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] See also: [27], [28]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval of the sources mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete or restore redirect to Union J. This had previously been merged. There are a couple of reviews in those sources, but the first source isn't bylined (and not a RS from the look of it); the Irish Independent is RS, SIGCOV; Oxford Mail local media not bylined; Mancunian Matters is hyper-local but has editorial oversight and is bylined; HitTheFloor is debatable, but a review nonetheless and there's an editor in place; Liverpool Echo is a WP:ROUTINE gig announcement from their sports editor (!); The Scotsman is a bylined review in an RS; the last two sources are an album review and a tour announcement in the Birmingham Mail. All in all, this is mostly routine, does have a couple decent gig reviews in RS but in the whole is not the stuff that amounts to making the TOUR notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.newagebd.net/post/politics/238360/bnp-appoints-three-more-members-to-chairpersons-advisory-council

[2] ttps://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bangladesh-minister-blames-murders-secular-bloggers-israeli-led-conspiracy-1563969

[3] ttps://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/print.php?ARTICLE_ID=74574

[4] ttps://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/politics-policies/trial-proceedings-against-bnp-leader-aslam-chy-to-continue-hc-1649010018

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]