Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 24	October 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Civilizations in Babylon 5

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

AFD to receive wider input if this needs a stand-alone article. In 2020, this civilization article got smerged into List_of_Babylon_5_characters (as part of a larger B5 cleanup move) for WP:INUNIVERSE and general WP:FANCRUFT problems to avoid AFD (the irony!), see original merge proposal. The article got reestablished today, I would nowadays label it as an undue WP:Content fork without established notability. Should it exist and develop from here (assuming sources even exist), or officially redirect back to List_of_Babylon_5_characters until it qualifies for WP:SPINOUT? – sgeureka ^t•c 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge back to the character list. There's sourcing there to support a few sentences about each of the major species but this can be condensed to a short section with the character list article. Most of the content is far more appropriate at a fan wiki. Masem (t) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It already was trimmed & merged. Did I miss something by accident back in 2020? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  In itscurrent state, the article still heavily relies on in universe info that is unsourced or sourced to the primary work. I am certain that we can better summarize the major sle ies from the show with se ondary sources without excessive in universe detail, hence the trim and merge to keep appropriate content. If there is an article recreation problem, salting can be done on the redirect. Masem (t) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading back on the talkpages, it seems that the main reason for reestablishing this civ list lies with Shadow_(Babylon_5), which (understandably) isn't listed in the LoC and thus had no real target. However, 2019's Shadow_(Babylon_5) article doesn't look like it would survive AFD, so I feel that's either a non-issue or issue for WP:RFD. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sgeureka: So what is the central argument for deletion here? Is it notability? If so, was a WP:BEFORE search done? What were the results?

Or is the main argument a WP:PAGEDECIDE one for a likely notable topic?

The original merge is quite justified in my view, as there were no objections to the proposal then. But I do understand that the lack of treatment of the Shadows is one concern, because I know there are secondary sources talking about them, even though they are neither worked into this article nor the old stand-alone one. I don't have an opinion yet on the merge, but I am against deletion, as I don't see a reason not to at least have the redirect as WP:AtD. I think the old merge discussion should have been continued instead of starting a deletion discussion. Pinging @Anonymous44: as involved editor.

With regard to notability, one first secondary source which has significant treatment on our topic here would be the Babylon 5 chapter of The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader, which discusses the four main "younger races", Shadows and Vorlons. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I am not arguing for deletion, but I want to ideally make the redirect (a common AFD result per WP:COMMON#Fiction) "stick" officially without tedious back-and-forth discussions with fans. Or get my wrist slapped here in the process. If proper merge discussions can be undone willy-nilly without addressing the original article issues (tagged for 12 years before the merger!), the lesson here will be to do AFD from the outset in the future instead of the softer merge proposal route, which I used to be a fan of. Notability is not the main reason why we are at AFD, but the article sure should be build around establishing it (it currently isn't). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka: Thanks for clarifying! I understand that starting an AfD has a higher chance of getting more opinions and a closure on the question of a stand-alone article as compared to a merge discussion on the talk page. But I also think that there are good reasons the deletion policy explicitely says not to use this process if one wants or suspects merging as an outcome. E.g. as you have put forward this being a WP:Contentfork as a reason for the nomination, deletion policy says "Reasons for deletion include ... 5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)" (emphasis mine). Maybe to reduce frustration on the process in general I would like to point out that this is a bit of special case: Yes, you had started a merge discussion. Noone objected, so you were completely justified in going forward with the merge. But there were also no further opinions given, so one cannot speak of a consensus formed, which was "undone willy-nilly". Rather, we now have a second, opposing opinion, so at this point there is clearly a no consensus situation, and the provisional restoration of the list in my view is justified as well, based on the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (even though there was a time gap before refert here). I think "tedious back-and-forth discussions with fans", or rather, other Wikipedia editors, are the normal and reasonable, if inconvenient process at this point to reach an informed decision on the best course of action. It would be quite a different case if a solid consensus would have formed. Then there need to be good reasons and significant input to overthrow previous decisions, and there should be no "willy-nilly" "back-and-forth" about it. But this discussion needs to take place first. Now if the merge discussion would remain with only two opinions, which may happen at a talk page discussion even if is somewhat frustrating, I think there were to options: 50/50 opinion looks like no consensus, then things are left as they are for the time being. Or if you think you have the way better arguments, get a neutral third party to decide at Wikipedia:Closure requests, just as we have a neutral party closing a deletion discussion. We don't need the AfD process to achieve that. Daranios (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the thing... I have plenty of dead-tree resources on Babylon 5, but no time to do anything much except for stave off AfDs:
- Bassom, D., & Straczynski, J. M. (1997a). Creating Babylon 5: Behind the scenes of Warner Bros. revolutionary deep space TV drama (1st American ed). Ballantine Books.
- Bassom, D., & Straczynski, J. M. (1997b). The A-Z of Babylon 5: [The complete reference guide to the groundbreaking sci-fi series] created by J. Michael Straczynski. Dell Publishing.
- Guffey, E. F., & Koontz, K. D. (2017). A dream given form: The unofficial guide to the universe of Babylon 5. ECW Press.
- Johnson-Smith, J. (2005). American science fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and beyond. Wesleyan University Press.
- Lancaster, K. (2001). Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan performance in a media universe (1st ed). University of Texas Press.
- Lane, A. (1997). The Babylon file: The definitive unauthorized guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV series, Babylon 5. Virgin.
- Lane, A. (1999). The Babylon file: The definitive unauthorised guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV series Babylon 5. Vol. 2. Virgin.

There is absolutely enough in these books to support notability for an article on each episode of the series, as well as most things like the shadows as a civilization. How we deal with this is really dependent on how we, collectively, view WP:TIND, as I'd be lying if I said I thought I'd have time to work on this in the foreseeable future. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Later we decide if a separate article is necessary. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, echoing 21.Andromedae. With the secondary sources presented, the topic looks notable, and there would be enough material to solve the problems it has through normal editing, so deletion is not the way to go. I have no strong opinion if this is better kept as a stand-alone article or condensed as part of List of Babylon 5 characters for the time being. On the one hand it has been tagged for the problems for a long time, on the other I do think it would be better presented as a separate article in the long run. If it were to be covered in the characters list, some more should be added there. I can take a look at the Shadows in case this is kept. So like Jclemens, it depends on where we stand with regard to WP:TIND. I come out just on the keep side as an AfD outcome, not precluding further discussion on a merge on the talk page. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this could become notable even with sources existing. Perhaps a Universe of Babylon 5 article could be made, but that would require a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Notability in the Wikipedia sense is intrinsically based on treatment in secondary sources. So I don't quite get how this could become notable even with sources existing. Did you mean something else or would you like to explain in more detail? Daranios (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not satisfied. This appears to be a textbook indiscriminate list unless you can demonstrate sources discuss the civilizations of that universe as a whole, and separate from other discussion on the universe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: sources discuss the civilizations of that universe as a whole I believe the listed secondary sources do just that. separate from other discussion on the universe I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean that there needs to be material directly commenting on civilizations/species of Babylon 5, then I agree and again believe that the provided sources do that. If you mean that there need to be sources which only discuss the civilizations without (separate from?) referring to the fictional universe, that makes little sense to me. They are part of the universe. Both topics are connected. If there should be one article on the civilizations and the universe or two depends on the amount of material in secondary sources. I believe there is enough for two. If they are better presented together, at least until things get too large to read, or separate I have no strong opinion on. It is an editorial question, which is no reason for deletion. Fact is, we have a civilizations article but not a universe one. So if someone thinks things are better presented another way, they can do so, but first deleting everything is not the way to go according to policy. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as establishing notability goes, I'm not really sure that most of those sources listed above should qualify, as they appear to have been written specifically to talk about Babylon 5, versus discussing the series and elements of it within a broader context; two of them were even written in part by the creator of the series. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: I agree that the two publications by Bassom and Straczynski are non-independent and therefore probably don't contribute to notability. But as soon as they become "unofficial" guides, they should be independent. I've never heard that they appear to have been written specifically to talk about Babylon 5 would lead to them not "counting" towards notability. What would be the basis for that? Our most basic critereon of notability being "did people consider it relevant enought to publish about". Of course overall aside from notability an article needs to fullfill WP:NOTPLOT. American science fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and beyond and The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader do come from a broader context right away. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge: I think it's possible that there may be something of value here, though I question whether truly independent sources (see my reply to Daranios above) have discussed the civilizations of B5 in any substantive detail. However, the listing in its current state would be more appropriate for a wikia or such, and I'm not sure how much of the current material would survive any real effort to provide sources that demonstrated real-world significance. I've also been on Wikipedia long enough to suspect that if the list is kept then we'll simply be revisiting this discussion in another few years when it hasn't been significantly improved. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Amor

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reviews in reliable sources already present in the article as determined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scars to Prove It

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Bastun has nominated nine Remedy Drive albums for deletion, all with the same non-descriptive rationale copy/pasted into each: "Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV." (The first nomination has slightly different syntax.) There is no evidence that a WP:BEFORE search, specific to each album, was done before this mass copy/paste operation. Some of the album articles have citations to reliable sources in the Christian music media, though others could be redirected to the band's article. That's already more variable evidence then given in these mass nominations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - not sure what you mean by "non-descriptive"? It's accurate. The albums have all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems good enough. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(I spread pro-Weezer propaganda)} 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is depressing. Vague nominations combatted by vague stances. Come on, do better. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a bit more on this one too. As I said on the nomination for Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Tight

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

Most definitely fails WP:GNG TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge text from Back to the Real. Caro7200 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes it notable though? Looking at the sources for the other page, half of the sources appear to be dead, one is just a wikipedia self citation, and one simply just confirms that the album exists. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Weak Keep, and use sources from the article for their lone album Back to the Real, which strangely is more developed than the band's article. Though I don't have access to the true chart pages at Billboard, their album made a small dent in the R&B charts and they had two mid-level hit singles. They got some minor coverage back in the day for being discovered by Warren G, as seen in a source used at the album article. This is reel close though, and I won't argue with anyone who votes differently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock

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

Run of the mill every day people that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Chearavanont

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

This article was recently published from draftspace with the reason: She is notable, in my opinion. Searching her name in Thai, มาริษา เจียรวนนท์, provides plenty of coverage, which is significant enough to establish notability. Since I cannot re-draftify it per WP:DRAFTNO #6, I am bringing it to AfD. I believe that the article should be re-draftify-ed per WP:DRAFTREASON because "The article was created by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest, but it did not go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process". The tone is very promotional, notability appears to be marginal, and this is a BLP with several uncited paragraphs. The status quo should be restored so that this article can be cleaned up and notability established. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Thailand. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will vote later; note to admin: It seems this is a return of resentment from our previous conflict rather than a professional approach. ManoiCMU (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Kunan

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested BLAR. Fails WP:BIO1E per the consensus at the previous AfD. Very little has changed between the pre-AfD version and the current version of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and Thailand. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I've updated the article. The last AfD discussion was six years ago in 2018. At that time, his notability was unclear, but now he is being called a "national hero." His big statue has been erected in his town, and a memorial hall has been established—clear signs of his notability [1]. He was awarded the Knight Grand Cross (First Class) of the Order of the White Elephant by the King, which is not the third class that is typically given to minister-level individuals. The first class is rarely awarded and is reserved for individuals at the state level. So, he clearly passes WP:ANYBIO (and if you disagree, WP:ANYBIO should be abolished and I will open a discussion). The Order of the White Elephant is not a joke and the dream of many Thais; it's a prestigious honor similar to India's Padma Vibhushan. Moreover, he is the subject of a film, and in 2021, a TV drama titled Thirteen Lives was made (see coverage), in which he was portrayed by renowned actor Sukollawat Kanarot, and many significant, reliable sources have independently featured him. He easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, even if WP:ANYBIO isn’t considered. Here is the update article. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Morevoer... In July 2019, the Airports of Thailand (AOT) established a large building named the Lt. Cdr. Saman Kunan Building in his honor. A 1.9-meter-wide by 2-meter-long bas-relief sculpture, standing 2 centimeters high, was installed in the building as a tribute [2], [3]. A merit-making ceremony was held four years after his passing. The source described it as being "to commemorate his sacrifice, bravery, and dedication, as well as his example of doing good with a volunteer heart." The event was organized by Air Vice Marshal Chananan Rodkul, Director of the Security Division, with all staff from the Royal Thai Army Security Division also joining in tribute, see. In 2023, he was honored as "the national hero turned legend" (source: "Looking Back 5 Years: 'Tham Luang Cave Rescue Mission' - A Hero in Our Memory"). This recognition establishes his status as a national figure. He is more than WP:BIO1E on Wikipedia. ManoiCMU (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing ANYBIO does not automatically establish that a person is independently notable. It also doesn't override other notability guidelines, such as BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the update article. The New York Post is generally unreliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you are not happy with this, here is the original article [4] from Reuters, and extra from The Nation (Thailand). The NY Post is a mirror of Reuters article. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, having a character in a TV drama about the notable event that this person is involved in does not establish notability of the person. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't cry....pls learn from many AfD outcomes. Other editors will decide his notability. Don't be serious. 55555. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portraying him as a figure in TV series is a sign of notability and a popular culture. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TECO Electric and Machinery

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

I believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. I made an effort to find references and could only find primary sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting this article. I have just updated the "External links" section. This is a Taiwan company doing business worldwide, so as the descriptions are detailed in its Chinese page, its Enlish page is brief. It must, however, is needed in English for people in other countries. In Wikipedia, don't be a "deletioniist", but be an "encourager" to let other people to participate in update, in order to make a "weak" article a better article. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshi Canopus, there are no sources for this article; the company's website cannot show notability. Do you have links to any sources that demonstrate this company is notable by Wikipedia standards? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all I can find in a BEFORE is ordinary business activities. The article is completely unsourced and there is no sign of notability that I can find. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sun, Yun-suan (2006). 臺灣奇蹟推手: 孫運璿先生管理講座紀念文集 [Promoter of Taiwan's Miracle: A Collection of Commemorative Essays of Mr. Sun Yun-Chuang's Management Lectures] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press [zh]. pp. 188–193. ISBN 978-986-00-7834-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book covers the company on six pages. The book notes: "在集團轉投資方面,東元近年來更展現了旺盛的企圖心,除了電子、電機、通訊之外,東元投資領域已經橫跨半導體、光電以及其他相關的關鍵零組件、通訊固網、網路軟件、流通餐飲等行業。在多年經營下,東元電機已由原來的重電、家電領域邁向全球化的高科技企業,從製造、行銷等多面向發展,建立起縱橫世界的國際品牌——TECO。"
  From Google Translate: "In terms of group reinvestment, TECO has shown strong ambition in recent years. In addition to electronics, motors, and communications, TECO’s investment areas have spanned semiconductors, optoelectronics, and other related key components, communications fixed lines, and networks. Road software, distribution catering and other industries. After years of operation, TECO has moved from its original heavy electrical and home appliance fields to a global high-tech enterprise, developing from manufacturing, marketing and other aspects, and established TECO, an international brand that spans the world."
2. Shelton, Paul (2024-05-07). "Taiwan's TECO Electric and Machinery faces proxy battle. Shareholder group demands change of management and core business focus". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "Taiwanese electronics conglomerate TECO Electric and Machinery Co. (TECO) is in the middle of a proxy battle ahead of its upcoming annual general meeting on May 24. Eugene Huang (黃育仁), the grandson of TECO founder Lin Ho-yin (林和引), has released his vision for the company’s future with the launch of the FutureTECO campaign. Huang, whose father Theodore Huang was chair for many years but resigned from his board seat in 2021, has asked shareholders to support his eight nominees for TECO’s board at the upcoming general meeting. ... Founded in 1956 as an industrial motor manufacturer, TECO has evolved into a major business group, spanning heavy electric equipment, home appliances, information technology, communications, electronic components and parts, infrastructural engineering, financial investment, dining, and services."
3. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2021-07-23). Wu, Ting-yun 吳廷勻; Wang, Li-hua 王儷華 (eds.). "東元之爭》父子惡鬥、家事變公事　15萬股民權益在哪裡？" [TECO Battle》Father and son fight fiercely, family affairs turn into business affairs. Where are the rights of 150,000 shareholders?]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-12. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "東元集團黃茂雄、黃育仁父子經營權之爭，因為疫情進入2個月的延長賽，終於畫下暫時的逗點。"
  From Google Translate: "The dispute between the father and son of TECO Group Huang Maoxiong and Huang Yuren for management rights has finally come to a temporary end after entering a two-month extension due to the epidemic."
  The article notes: "這是一門代價不小的家族傳承及公司治理課。東元股東會投票結果，只是另一個開始。兩方公開收購戰還在進行，未來，東元電機必須更努力證明，自己仍是連續7年公司治理評鑑前5％的模範生。"
  From Google Translate: "This is a costly lesson in family inheritance and corporate governance. The voting result of TECO's shareholders' meeting is just another beginning. The public takeover battle between the two parties is still ongoing. In the future, TECO Electric must work harder to prove that it is still a model student in the top 5% of corporate governance evaluations for seven consecutive years."
4. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2024-09-11). Hong, Jia-ning 洪家寧 (ed.). "銀行教父如何改造傳產老店？專訪東元新董事長利明献「我來危機管理」". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "去年是東元業績最好的一年，去年毛利率創下七年新高，營收和EPS也刷新史上紀錄，財務健全、負債比率低，無庸置疑是一家營運穩健的公司。但過去這幾年，也是東元經營權紛爭最多的時期，父子反目的戲碼比八點檔還好看，吸住全民的注意力。現在經營權之爭已休戰，東元由華新麗華焦家、寶佳兩大股東共治的局勢落定，利明献認為，中長期來看，過去紛擾必定對品牌以及軍心有所影響，東元現在急需一個能扭轉態勢的掌舵者。"
  From Google Translate: "Last year was TECO's best performance year. Last year's gross profit margin hit a seven-year high, and revenue and EPS also set new historical records. With sound finances and a low debt ratio, there is no doubt that it is a company with stable operations. But the past few years have also been the period of most disputes over TECO's management rights. The drama about father and son's rebellion is even better than the 8 o'clock show, attracting the attention of the whole people. Now that the dispute over management rights has come to an end, TECO is now governed by the two major shareholders, Walsin Lihua Jiao Family and Baojia. Lee Ming-hsien believes that in the medium to long term, the past turmoil will definitely have an impact on the brand and military morale. TECO There is an urgent need for a leader who can turn the situation around."
5. Zhang, Rui-yi 張瑞益 (2023-05-03). "東元永續績效國際肯定榮獲MSCI AA評級列全球同業前15% 生產據點全都通過ISO 14000環保認證" [TECO's sustainable performance is recognised internationally Won the MSCI AA rating and ranked among the top 15% of global peers. All production sites have passed ISO 14000 environmental certification.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "東元電機是國內推動ESG相當積極且有成的企業，根據國際知名評比MSCI（Morgan Stanley Capital International）ESG Rating最新發布的2023年4月評比報告，東元再進一級，由A級升等為AA級，永續發展績效評比成績為全球同業中的前15%。MSCI在報告中指出，東元董事會運作良善，董事獨立性符合投資人期待；而東元全球的生產據點皆通過ISO 14000環保認證，為業界翹楚。"
  From Google Translate: "TECO Electric is a very active and successful company in promoting ESG in China. According to the latest April 2023 rating report released by the internationally renowned MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) ESG Rating, TECO has moved up a level and been upgraded from Grade A. It is rated AA and ranks in the top 15% of its global peers in terms of sustainable development performance. MSCI pointed out in the report that TECO's board of directors operates well and the director's independence meets investors' expectations; TECO's global production sites have all passed ISO 14000 environmental certification and are among the best in the industry."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TECO Electric and Machinery (traditional Chinese: 東元電機; simplified Chinese: 东元电机) 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) 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Armstrong

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

This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thanks for pointing it out in this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Austudy Five has just been Prodded. I found a cite that Mick Armstrong was one of the 5 in a few seconds, a better cite would still be valuable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPath^talk 04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Subject to another deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Mick Armstrong) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Poolu (TV series)

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

No significant coverage. The references on the page are 1) about the book and 2) don't even mention the show (FAKEREF?). A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any significant coverage. Note there is a movie under the same name for those doing a search prior to voting. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Gemini_TV#Current_broadcasts -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 sources on the page that are about the author and her book and nothing on the series that the page is on. Fails WP:SIGCOV about the series in sources and no reviews by critics with reliable sources on the page. RangersRus (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nambiar Builders

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP Polygnotus (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The subject of this article meets the **General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG)** and **Notability for Companies (WP:NCORP)** based on multiple independent, reliable sources. The following references provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions:
1. [It’s raining deals at the Great Times Property Festival](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/its-raining-deals-at-the-great-times-property-festival/articleshow/74076948.cms) – The Times of India

2. [Enphase India and U-Solar install rooftop PV plants in Bengaluru](https://www.energetica-india.net/news/enphase-india-and-u-solar-install-rooftop-pv-plants-in-bengaluru) – Energetica India

3. [Koramangala-based web start-up HomeBuy360 hits home run in real estate](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/south/koramangala-based-web-start-up-homebuy360-com-hits-home-run-in-real-estate/articleshow/13642201.cms?from=mdr) – The Economic Times

4. [Six reasons why you should watch 'Khasaakinte Itihaasam' play in Bengaluru](https://www.thenewsminute.com/features/six-reasons-why-you-should-watch-khasaakinte-itihaasam-play-bengaluru-42360) – The News Minute

5. [Enphase looks to tap 10% of rooftop market in next 2 years](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/enphase-looks-to-tap-10-of-rooftop-market-in-next-2-years/articleshow/89906198.cms?from=mdr) – The Economic Times

These sources demonstrate significant independent coverage, meeting the requirements of **WP:GNG** by showing that the subject has received attention from reputable publications. Additionally, since the article is about a business, it aligns with **WP:NCORP** by having multiple third-party sources, not limited to press releases or company announcements.
I believe the article merits retention based on these references and respectfully request that it not be deleted. Sanyam (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted the above reply a bit to make further discussion easier. Skynxnex (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep The content appears to be detailed and written in a neutral tone, aligning with Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and verifiability. The article provides substantial information relevant to the topic, and there is no indication of promotional bias. Additionally, the references cited seem appropriate and support the article’s claims. Therefore, I believe the article should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Polygnotus (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The article should be retained as it has received link in from prominent celebrities such as K S Chithra,Sharreth and K K Nishad.Relation to such well-known public figures demonstrate the subject’s notability and relevance. These acknowledgments also contribute to the subject's significance and public interest, aligning with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. --Divyajain85 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) — Divyajain85 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: !Vote by indefblocked sock struck. BD2412 T 01:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. The closer should note that the keep voters in the discussion so far (Sanyam, 2607:FEA8:FF20:817D:C950:BE55:DCAD:14C7, and Divyajain85) all appear to be SPAs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep It appears that editors Hemiauchenia and Polygnotus are primarily focused on my (Sanyam's) involvement rather than the content and significance of the page in question. I strongly disagree with their assessment regarding the article's failure to meet the criteria outlined in "WP:NCORP." The page clearly includes all important parameters such as reliable media sources and relevant linkages with notable individuals. Additionally, it is essential to recognize that multiple identities have been created online under the same name, highlighting the necessity for Wikipedia as a critical validation tool to differentiate between fake and legitimate representations.--Sanyam Jain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: !Vote by sockmaster also struck. BD2412 T 01:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Analysis of sources proves that the page is for WP:PROMO. Poor sources on the page that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter and it does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both The Economic Times and The News Minute are references that can be relied upon. Additionally, there are other sources that show notability. There are a variety of other references that indicate this passes WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udtatika (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC) (This user also appears to be a SPA, see their contribs [5]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: !Vote by additional sock also struck. BD2412 T 01:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP: GNG AfD nominator seems to be unfamiliar with WP: BEFORE, so follow the sources mentioned above. Sending a new article to AfD is not the best way to go. Meraara (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) — Meraara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: !Vote by additional sock also struck. BD2412 T 01:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:GNG/ WP:SIRS.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.indywoodexcellenceawards.com/builtinindia-awards		?	Listing	✘ No
https://www.brickworkratings.com/		?	Homepage link	✘ No
https://www.icra.in/Rationale/ShowRationaleReport?Id=91186	?	?	PDF Listing	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/its-raining-deals-at-the-great-times-property-festival/articleshow/74076948.cms		~	Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.energetica-india.net/news/enphase-india-and-u-solar-install-rooftop-pv-plants-in-bengaluru	Interview / Press release	?		✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/south/koramangala-based-web-start-up-homebuy360-com-hits-home-run-in-real-estate/articleshow/13642201.cms?from=mdr			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.thenewsminute.com/features/six-reasons-why-you-should-watch-khasaakinte-itihaasam-play-bengaluru-42360		?	Trivial mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Delete. Source analysis above is persuasive. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

232d Medical Battalion

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

Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search got mostly press releases. A subject specific notability guideline doesn't exist for military units/formations, and the article seems to not fulfill our general notability guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT. But move to 232nd Medical Battalion per norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error message comes up on this AFD, as well "Do not use {{Draft article}} in mainspace". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, — Maile ,

I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 Hate to say this, but I'm not seeing any error messages, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sourcing on the subject is the unit talking about itself. That is neither secondary nor independent. MILUNIT is not a notability guideline and so per WP:N has zero sway here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have expanded it a bit and added some sources as part of #NOV24 backlog drive. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess TheBirdsShedTears' updates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Espinar bus crash

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

Lacks sustained coverage in secondary sources and had no lasting effects. This is a news article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 41 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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} 23:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – There appears to be some continued coverage that may demonstrate the event's notability,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] however, the fact that some do not provide significant coverage of the event plus the lack of demonstrable lasting effects all make me lean towards a weak delete. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Mal estado de vía sería causa de accidente" [Poor road conditions could cause an accident]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 29 December 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "Internan en penal de Chumbivilcas a chofer que causó 42 muertes al volcar bus" [Driver who caused 42 deaths when bus overturned is held in Chumbivilcas prison]. Agencia Peruana de Noticias (in Spanish). 13 May 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "La tragedia que enlutó la Navidad" [The tragedy that darkened Christmas]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 25 December 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "Ni empresa de transporte, ni aseguradora reparan a vï¿½ctimas de accidente | La fuga de Guapo Lindo" [Neither the transport company nor the insurance company compensates accident victims | The escape of Guapo Lindo]. El Búho (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 October 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kent

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Sole acceptable source is from BBC Scotland Business news reporting on his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association. Not sufficient to demonstrate notability as a "mention in passing (example given at BASIC is "John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University")" AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets. Only about 30-40 awarded every year in a country of 67 million people. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As we established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Shearman, honours, which are routine for British ambassadors to receive from their employer, do not eliminate the requirements for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We established no such thing. Only a minority of diplomats or even ambassadors have high honours such as the CMG. You made a patently false claim by citing only very senior ambassadors who do have such honours and the AfD was closed before I could answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not false. A very large number of British ambassadors have received honours from their employer, many with fairly unremarkable careers. That doesn't override BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Who are you to state they've had unremarkable careers? A high honour would suggest otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only instance of IDONTLIKEIT is your approach to the requirement for significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. AusLondonder (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC after adding references which were trivial to find: WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. Jonathan A Jones (talk)

The two most recent sources you've added are primary. I actually did see the government sources before nominating but I know that per BASIC "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing some routine announcements about his appointments, but nothing independent, secondary, and significant. And content following "According to the official biography" is obviously not independent or secondary. Receiving an award also doesn't mean the subject is exempt from notability requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass BASIC, see e.g. Buenos Aires Times (158 words), Nation Thailand (327 words), MercoPress (176 words), VietnamPlus (about some sort of award he received from the Vietnam government, 100 words), Press and Journal (287 words), Bangkok Post (1000+ words w/quotes), etc. Also, if everyone failing ANYBIO but meeting BASIC gets an article, and everyone meeting ANYBIO has to pass BASIC to get an article, that effectively means that ANYBIO is 100% wholly worthless. Or maybe, just maybe, there is a purpose in having such criteria, such as that categories of people winning major awards should be complete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A point I've made many times. If ANYBIO is routinely ignored then what on earth is the point of it? The point of it is to catch people who have had careers in unglamorous occupations but who have received high honours from their country, in recognition that, glamorous or not, they have made a significant contribution to the world. Wikipedia is not a reality TV talent contest, but a serious encyclopaedia that should cover such people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except WP:ANYBIO explicitly, unambiguously states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It does not in any sense override BASIC requirements. It's a guide that indicates a likelihood of notability, not a free pass. If you want that to change, feel free to propose it instead of bringing up reality television at every AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources identified, I can't see them contributing to notability. Interviews are primary sources. A brief mention of his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association is not an acceptable source as I pointed out in the nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing all of those sources, especially the Bangkok Post 1,300-word feature on 'The workaholic ambassador', which contains over 700 words on Kent that is not quotes, is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware what it says. I'm pointing out that if it's sneered at whenever it's mentioned then it's utterly pointless, which suggests it's intended to be taken into consideration. What do you think it's there for precisely? Don't actually think I've mentioned reality television before! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to meet WP:BASIC, per others. Sir MemeGod  15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguni (district)

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

Subject does not meet GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NPLACE. Noah ^💬 00:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the subject not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria or NPLACE and in addition NPLACE does not supersede GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. This seems like an incredibly arbitrary AfD, there are hundreds of thousands of places that fail GNG but are included on Wikipedia because they pass NPLACE. Noah ^💬 02:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušica Bijelić

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

Article is cited almost entirely to non-independent sources; mainly to theaters employing the subject. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all insignificant comprimario parts. We need to see better more significant roles, and those roles covered in independent sources, to pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Mal estado de vía sería causa de accidente" [Poor road conditions could cause an accident]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 29 December 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[2] "Internan en penal de Chumbivilcas a chofer que causó 42 muertes al volcar bus" [Driver who caused 42 deaths when bus overturned is held in Chumbivilcas prison]. Agencia Peruana de Noticias (in Spanish). 13 May 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[3] "La tragedia que enlutó la Navidad" [The tragedy that darkened Christmas]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 25 December 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[4] "Ni empresa de transporte, ni aseguradora reparan a vï¿½ctimas de accidente | La fuga de Guapo Lindo" [Neither the transport company nor the insurance company compensates accident victims | The escape of Guapo Lindo]. El Búho (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]