User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

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

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Isha Malviya (2nd nomination)	3 months ago	5	7547	7640.49
Edward Parker (police officer)	22 days ago	2	3910	1884.05
Second Battle of Robotyne	20 days ago	3	12209	1610.4
Upwave	17 days ago	1	8754	1589.77
Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh	17 days ago	2	7083	1466.18
VanGrunsven RV-2	17 days ago	2	14860	1463.59
Disagreement	14 days ago	1	3962	1368.89
Islamic Association of Palestine	13 days ago	0	13154	1323.74
Delight Mobile	12 days ago	0	4340	1262.85
Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)	15 days ago	4	8114	1260.55
Marco Magnani	11 days ago	0	6589	1219.74
Swadhin Axom	14 days ago	3	18552	1198.85
Marek Solčanský	13 days ago	3	4096	1181.94
Michael Nevin (diplomat)	10 days ago	0	3668	1132
Cansolabao, Samar	13 days ago	4	12955	1106.78
7 Intelligence Company	10 days ago	1	4824	1097.56
Mama Lion	9 days ago	0	3368	1092.39
Luka Čadež	10 days ago	1	3205	1088.9
Stuart Gill	10 days ago	1	3699	1082.15
OpenSilver Framework	11 days ago	2	12486	1024.35
Seoul Tourism Awards	8 days ago	0	4074	1021.68
Ali Maisam Nazary	10 days ago	2	3889	1013.73
Clappers Records	9 days ago	1	4182	1010.58
Brian Campbell (game designer)	10 days ago	2	4563	1007.29
Ami Dar	10 days ago	3	3913	929.21

Isha Malviya

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [1], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 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 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as she is a notable actress and model who has gained significant recognition for her role in the popular television series "Udaariyaan," contributing to her widespread popularity. Additionally, her career achievements and public interest make her a relevant figure in the entertainment industry --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Edward Parker (police officer)

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

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [2]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([3]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete not sure of any notability here. Vorann Gencov (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Second Battle of Robotyne

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

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Southern Ukraine campaign: The information is useful, but does not require its own article. Whatever can be reliably cited should be moved to the main timeline article. Draftifying is practically no different than outright deleting: I do not see WP:LASTING notability being established anytime soon, so the article will just end up being deleted in draftspace after 6 months. C F A 💬 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Upwave

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:

This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g 🗯️ 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking, it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do – but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Teratix ₵ 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survata.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete I'm going to disagree with both of the above two comments. Every single article on a company is a burden on the Wikipedia community to ensure it doesn't get turned into an ad. The less notable the company is the harder it is for the community to meet that burden, both because there's less content to base a neutral article on and because fewer people are likely to be watching it. This is the very reason why we have the strict notability guidelines for companies that we do. And since there's been no specific answer to Teratix's question, the argument that it fails them has gone unchallenged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

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

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Evin Prison. This is a case of WP:BLP1E; Rostampour and Amirizadeh got a lot of coverage related to their prison ordeal and release, but it wasn't sustained. Amirizadeh's run for state office wouldn't be independently notable. With the apparent request for deletion by one of the subjects, the balance tilts more strongly to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

VanGrunsven RV-2

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[4] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

~~Keep for now~~ Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
[Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)]

Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement

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

Non notable topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment this is a one-line WP:DICTDEF because nobody could agree on a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Clearly something that should be redirected, but to what is the question. Disagreements (epistemology), Dissent, Objection (argument), Argument, etc. all seem like valid targets. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete and then move Disagreements (epistemology) to this title because the subject of that article corresponds to this one. Use a hatnote to point to the other redirect targets mentioned byCurbon7. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagreements (epistemology) has too many problems of its own to be the primary topic here. A broad-concept article at Agreement might be the best target; but I am not sure any redirect is better than the current quasi-DAB setup. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to any of the above choices. This article exists because nobody could what???????? 🤔

jp×g 🗯️ 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Islamic Association of Palestine

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

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 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 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
[9] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
First article seems fine.

Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

A review of his work on NYTimes

"Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delight Mobile

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

This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The few existing sources:

Are anyone of these affiliated? Have google searches been done? Mrfoogles (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are barely-rehashed product release announcements – textbook trivial coverage that doesn't contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)

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

The person is not notable; highly promo article; sources are about companies nor the person; 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Keep. The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person. Probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. WP:MILL business person. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. No SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

~~I agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)~~

Please find some examples of WP:SIGCOV:
1. https://forbes.ua/profile/oleksandr-komarov-369 (1 place among top 25 best СЕО)
2. https://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2018/12/6/643323/
3. https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/markets/v-kijivstar-priznachili-novoho-kerivnika-z-beeline-2483354.html
See also 17,000+ results of Google Search in Ukrainian

Komarov is really No 1 business person in Ukraine --Perohanych (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I stand by my delete here. References are trivial mentions. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Everything else is routine press releases. C F A 💬 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) please adhere to this guideline and learn how to spot paid or superficial news from deep media coverage 182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! --Perohanych (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Lots of trivial mentions and interviews among the available sources, but I'd count Interfax Ukraine, EPravda, Forbes Kazakhstan and DELO.ua as sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG. If the consensus goes toward deletion, I'd recommend a redirect to Kyivstar instead of outright deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Marco Magnani

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

Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [10] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [11] [12] [13] [14]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [15] [16] [17]

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [18][19] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [20] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America, il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?

Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.

I'm not 100% sure if the book sources transfer over to his notability, but he's still got a case either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Swadhin Axom

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Marek Solčanský

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage about this luger to meet WP:GNG. All I found on news websites were passing mentions of his participation at the tournament. He was not even on top three luge winners. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia on 18 November 2018, possibly due to BLP concerns. The only interlanguage wiki available is Norsk Bokmål (Norwegian) Wikipedia but it listed exactly the same sources as the English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep the article meets the notability criteria for athletes, having competed in the Winter Olympics and achieved notable rankings in World Championships and World Cups.Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Participating in the Olympics no longer grants inherent notability. Redirect as a WP:ATD per the nom. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Nevin (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment I nominated quite a few of the diplomat articles I previously created for deletion, but I left this one out as there was coverage of his time in Malawi in the Nyasa Times and other Malawian sources. : [21], [22], [23], [24] [25]. May be more available. Unsure if this fails GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Cansolabao, Samar

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

Does not have any notability and has no sources. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: ~~Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized barangays.~~ Also, coverage found in books. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Cocobb8 barangays are not cities/towns of the Philippines. They are just administrative divisions. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). Only those that jave backing reliable, independent, secondary sources that are not mere statistic listings or listings of schools/establishments/tourist sites, like Forbes Park, Makati, are qualified to have standalone articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is Barangay 51, Caloocan (list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000 barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 I did not realize it was 40,000 barangays. Thanks for pointing it out. But, I would still keep this article per the coverage I found in books. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces. WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in Manila is not a WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no WP:SIGCOV from an WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be. The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S. census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.

I would like to see a country whose smallest administrative divisions/units are covered by enwiki. I think that would be India (e.g. Delhi Cantonment and Haqiqat Nagar ➡️ List of neighbourhoods of Delhi). @Cocobb8:, can you give specific examples of countries whose 90-100% of smallest administrative divisions (divisions of cities/towns) are covered by enwiki? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck Just a question where does GEOLAND talk about urban sprawl and subdvisions/subadminsitrative units of a greater one? Ping me in the reply too please. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, User:Eostrix discusses this. Granted it was apparently his personal interpretation.

As for this barangay, this is quite some distance away from the main Hinabangan town center, about 36 kilometers away. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
...that AfD completely mis-applies WP:GEOLAND... SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer the current de facto consensus among Filipino Wikipedians is that the administrative wards or barangays should be treated per case-to-case basis. Those like Forbes Park, Makati can stand alone, but majority (90% perhaps) do not. Unless a higher consensus through WP:GEOLAND forums overrides the de facto consensus of the Filipino Wikipedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:GEOLAND is policy which would over-ride local consensus, which would not preclude this topic anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND is a subject-specific notability guideline, and overrides local consensus. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline overrides any WP:SNG. WP:GNG overrides WP:GEOLAND. The argument here is does this place have WP:SIGCOV anywhere? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:GNG does not actually override WP:GEOLAND - WP:GEOLAND is one of the rare exceptions and simply requires verification that this is a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays. HueMan1 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

7 Intelligence Company

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

The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This unit is part of the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, part of the Canadian Intelligence Corps. Upmerge to Canadian Intelligence Corps. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
This could also be said about the separate extant articles on 2, 3, 4, and 6 Intelligence Company though. Why single out just this one for being amalgamated up? Anecdotally, in terms of actual personnel numbers it's actually one of the largest of those five currently. 90% of the content of those other articles is just Intelligence Corps history, repurposed (the 2 Int entry reprints basically two other Wikipedia articles on Pickersgill and Macalister)... at least the 7 Intelligence Company entry is humble enough not to pad itself out with redundancy.

It's also somewhat problematic that we've recently privileged the Canadian Intelligence Corps, which is currently a notional/paper organization with no responsibilities and zero staff of its own, with an article, over the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, the working unit which comprises most of the working military intelligence personnel in the Canadian Forces. While the names are similar, this construct makes more sense for the British Intelligence Corps. In the Canadian context it just looks silly. BruceR (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article should certainly be somewhere (here or merged). It's a reasonable search terms given the media reports of sexual assault - for example it's mentioned 7 times in this article. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So the only arguments being proposed here are Deletion or a Merge to Canadian Intelligence Corps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Just seems to me we've privileged all the other articles for exactly comparable things that engaged in shameless entry padding over the one article that didn't and kept itself factual. BruceR (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Mama Lion

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Sources only mentioned in passing. Don't appear to have any charted or had a significant impact. Mdann52 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Coverage in newspapers. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Most of that appears unrelated to the band. Mdann52 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
ATD: Merge or redirect to Lynn Carey, although that article has several issues on its own. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Luka Čadež

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

Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Slovenia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No SIGCOV coming up for the subject. (There is a Slovenian footballer with the same name, but not so many search results I couldn't sift through them.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Stuart Gill

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Malta, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Important Ambassador key to negotiations on the completion of the EU’s Single Market. KEEP Cantab12 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment - if not notable then this list List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malta is just useless. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO. The sole keep vote fails to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

OpenSilver Framework

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

Fails WP: N. The Krill article is routine coverage, and the rest of the sources are closely affiliated with Userware or aren't reliable. This was dePRODed without any sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Redirecting and/or merging to Microsoft Silverlight is an AtD that I'm comfortable with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HyperAccelerated,

Can you please explain how the most relevant online sources related to software development, such as InfoQ, Visual Studio Magazine, InfoWorld, and SD Times, could be close to Userware? Can you please tell me what you would expect as a source? If I add all the articles written about OpenSilver in the past years, will it increase the relevance according to you? The complete functional source of the framework is on GitHub, with visible contributions from tens of developers and requests from tens of people (I assume representatives of various organizations and individuals who use the framework) for improvements noted under the GitHub issues. OpenSilver is a relevant solution for many organizations trying to find a solution for their Microsoft Silverlight (already discontinued technology) legacy solutions, and it's free and open source. How is it not worth being part of Wikipedia when some of the most relevant online magazines write about its development and growth over the years? Vasbu (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any credentials for David Ramel when I first nominated the article. I took a second look, and it appears he's been writing about technology for awhile at this point. I'll consider him a reliable source then. I'll withdraw if you come forth with another source to establish notability, because notability generally requires multiple sources. On the other hand, the number of contributors and pull requests has not, is not, and will never be a metric for notability. Please keep the discussion about sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@HyperAccelerated, are you satisfied with the sources brought up below? -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You also really should not be creating articles about subjects that you have a disclosed conflict of interest with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply @HyperAccelerated.

Aside from Visual Studio Magazine and David Ramel, please find the following list of sources:

InfoQ - It has been one of the most relevant online sources for software development topics since 2006. InfoQ team started following OpenSilver in 2020 and covered several releases of OpenSilver (I assume whenever they identified interest according to their editorial strategy). The writers covering OpenSilver topics are Edin Kapic, a Microsoft MVP based in Barcelona, Spain, and Arthur Casals, an AI Researcher with a Ph.D.
InfoWorld - It is one of the trusted sources of information related to open-source, application development, cloud computing, and other IT-related topics. InfoWorld has also covered OpenSilver, with a few news articles from the past 3-4 years. The OpenSilver-related articles are written by Paul Krill, an editor with 30+ years of experience in InfoWorld Media Group. InfoWorld is a part of the Foundry umbrella along with CIO, CSO, Computer World, Mac World, PC World, and others. They explicitly say they don't accept contributing articles to collect visits and publicity.
I Programmer was founded by Mike James, an editor-in-chief and author of books. I Programmer published a series of articles about OpenSilver in the past years. Besides Mike James other authors covered the articles related to OpenSilver including Alex Denham and Kay Ewbank.
Ghacks - a tech postal has 2 articles about OpenSilver. The author of the articles is Martin Brinkmann.
Kurt Shintaku's blog - Kurt Shintaku is a Client Technology Lead at Microsoft, working for about 30 years in the corporation. He found an interest in OpenSilver in the early days when OpenSilver was beta. He recognized OpenSilver as a suitable solution for owners of Microsoft Silverlight-based solutions when Microsoft announced the end of support.
The Register - The article was written by Tim Anderson, a journalist who covers various technical topics.
Matt Eland's Blog - Kill all defects - Matt Eland is a US-based Microsoft MVP in AI interested in OpenSilver as an open-source technology for replacing MS Silverlight. Obviously, he was motivated in 2020 to write about it in his blog. He is a blogger, book, and course author.
AlternativeTo.org - it has been recognized as an alternative or in a way successor of MS Silverlight.
Distributed Memory Blog was created by an independent software developer Steve Gilham who wrote a series of tech articles related to OpenSilver.

Vasbu (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please find one more source:

Root.cz - In 2021 Petr Krčmář was writing about OpenSilver, recognizing a potential solution in it for those who have custom developed applications based on MS Silverlight.

Vasbu (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Spider's Web Portal - The Polish online magazine Spider's Web published an article about OpenSilver written by Hubert Thaler - an software engineer and manager with 25+ years experience in the domain. He wrote 1000+ articles for the portal.

Vasbu (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Heise online - An article written by Holger Schwichtenberg, German author of computer books.

Vasbu (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Le Monde Informatique - One of the leading IT news websites in France. It covers software development, IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. The site is known for its in-depth articles and industry analysis. They re-published the article by Paul Krill, originally written and published on InfoWorld. Jean Elyan (respected journalist with 25+ years of experience working for companies such as IDG Communications) adopted the French version of the article.

Vasbu (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep - OpenSilver is the defacto open-source successor to Microsoft's Silverlight framework. [26], [27]. It has independent coverage in notable industry publications including Visual Studio Magazine and InfoWorld. GobsPint (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep significant coverage is present, nothing seems to be wrong with WP:GNG either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@HyperAccelerated I updated the sources in the article. Please take a look when you have time to review the update. Thank you. Vasbu (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Seoul Tourism Awards

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

Non-notable award which effectively serves the purpose of rewarding people who promote tourism in Seoul. The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans. The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Travel and tourism, and South Korea. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.

[28][29][30][31]

I can look up more upon request.

Also I'd argue the lack of activity and links is much more secondary to coverage. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ali Maisam Nazary

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons WP:GNG and WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as this one by the New York Sun. Dan Wang (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we table this discussion? There’s been no second opinion in favour of deletion. Dan Wang (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Highly WP:BLP concerns especially with the sourcing, which doesn't clarify or meet WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. In general view of this discussion, the article doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Clappers Records

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

I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as lacking indepth sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I think we should be careful about deleting this. It seems to have a significant cultural impact on rap and reggae. It has an entry here which is interesting, and at African American Research Perspectives [32], of which I can only see a small part. The label had one release which seems to be of particular significance [33]. I'm not finding enough coverage for a standalone article. Perhaps redirect to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise?? It seems to be significant enough to WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Brian Campbell (game designer)

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

I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work") I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I fully get how annoying White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.

However, for Ratkin (1999), Umbra (2001) and Tribebook: Bone Gnawers (2001) Campbell is listed as sole author - that satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:NBASIC, no secondary coverage. I don't think he meets WP:NAUTHOR either, only major work seems to be Victorian Age: Vampire. --Mika1h (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per the arguments of Newimpartial, but failing that we could always merge or redirect to List of role-playing game designers. BOZ (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ami Dar

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

Can't find anything beyond a story in the wrap and a handbook by his organization (which has been deleted). Given the lack of an Israeli page, it seems Israeli sources are unlikely as well. One source is not enough for WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete: Might be notable, seems to be mentioned in a book: [34], but that is a tertiary source about it. Very brief mention here [35]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge into ~~Idealist.org~~ Action Without Borders -- which he founded, leads and for which he is known -- as a an unnecessary WP:SPINOFF/WP:CONTENTFORK, per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Note the huge overlap. gidonb (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Content can't be merged to Idealist.org as this page is a redirect. Is there a different target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Action Without Borders: He founded this notable organisation; suits ATD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)