Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

25 September 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 24	September 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders

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

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references consist of an MLB rulebook which is a primary source and baseball-reference.com which is a stats database; neither count towards notability. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search came up empty; hence, delete. Left guide (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders. Also, this is covered by Baseball Almanac and I'd imagine baseball-reference though I haven't seen a direct source. Conyo14 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Are those sources secondary and WP:SIGCOV for this topic though? Mere statistical database entries don't count towards notability; the sources need to provide fleshed out prose and context directly about this list topic. Left guide (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for a !keep. Just merely pointing out the references that are to be pointed here. Baseball Almanac is considered reliable and covers the statistical aspect. Beyond that, I'd say each record is likely to house some WP:SIGCOV from the player article. However, the grouping may not suffice for deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Well can you please provide more specific usable links (the Baseball Almanac link you supplied comes up as an error without rendering anything meaningful) or quotes of the source material so they can be judged and examined by the community? I'm afraid your argument is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES as of the present moment. Notability is demonstrated via evidence of sufficient source material, not the belief or assertion of such. WP:Articles for deletion/List of NBA career ejections leaders is a current example of evidence-based WP:NLIST notability being demonstrated in a similar context (sports stats list). Left guide (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it did, let me fix the link. My argument is more like, "watch out". Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Yes, I was already aware of the bundled right-fielder AfD as someone who participated there. I was referring to this Baseball Almanac external link you provided, which incurs a 404-type error. Left guide (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing at a time, Left guide. Conyo14 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Is this the Baseball Almanac source you've been alluding to? If so, it unfortunately doesn't contribute towards WP:NLIST for this particular topic. It has a table with a collection of random outfielder double play stats (not secondary or SIGCOV), and then a "Fast Facts" section at the bottom with secondary prose about three random factoids, but nothing about this list topic specifically. Left guide (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forgot to mention in the nom that the content within the article's two sources don't discuss this list topic at all. They're being used in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fashion to verify tangential details. And this in the external links section is not secondary or SIGCOV; raw stats tables don't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all in set Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Baramova

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability tag and BLP sourcing issues have been tagged for the last eleven years. No sources have been added in that time. Despite two previous AFDs, the article is still not referenced. Given the change in attitude towards needing sources on BLPs since the last AFD in 2009, it is time to look at this again. 4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Unsourced but external links provided. Subject to two previous AFDs (Kept, No consensus) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hits Radio London

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

Non-notable radio station. Lacks WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Anthems

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

Non-notable radio station. Lacks WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar Burgström

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only sources I could find were 2 directory listings in Google books. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Sweden. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Stout

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted and salted. This new creation must not escape review. Most of the sources are written in a clearly promotional tone and hence are probably not independent of the subject. As one egregious example, the first and last sources are clearly variations of the same press release - starting with In the dynamic arena of contemporary art, few names resonate as profoundly as Marko Stout vs. In the dynamic world of contemporary art, few names shine as brightly as Marko Stout‘s.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Medicine, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suemonella

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

Non-notable TikTok account. Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hammer

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable "author" (blogger). Feels self-promotional. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article of a non-notable figure Traumnovelle (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Firearms, Internet, Alaska, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Anish

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Only 1 article links to this, the school he attended. A google news search seems to come up with mainly namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comilla Girls' College

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

Non-notable school. No WP:RS and unlikely any exist. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Cabrils (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lika Bibileishvili

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

Non-notable classical musician. Feels WP:TOOSOON. Page lacks WP:RS and so does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Could not find any RS via WP:BEFORE. Cabrils (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Fête Worse Than Death

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

I was able to find a single review from the Daily Mail on ProQuest and nothing else to pass WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and is not usable. This looks like a review but I can't tell how long it is, and even if it is that's only one source. Redirect to author Iain Aitch (his article is bad but from the sourcing I found while searching for this, is probably notable)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Travel and tourism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Gallardo-Domâs

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

Unreferenced BLP. Not clear that subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Spain, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some references for the artist. I've NO idea I they are suitable. I will have a look again tomorrow.Knitsey (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is better than what we had, which was nothing. Thank you for your effort.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There might be some more refs I can find. Knitsey (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more refs. There might be more to come. I would really like for someone to take a look to see if they're suitable? Knitsey (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say, I haven't really editied the article much, just provided refs for what was already there. I will re-work it a bit if this AfD results in keep. I need to check on the date order for all the operas listed. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prefer to see further improvement rather than deleting. --Mervyn (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently added sources would be helpful. If they are adequate would the nominator consider a withdrawal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Sober

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

Been tagged for sourcing issues since 2011. Not clear if subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe (company)

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

Article fails demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Both TechCrunch articles are about routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV). And not that it matters but the article was created by a now-blocked SPA. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Softball, and California. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This situation is confusing as it looks like it was nominated before at AFD but now the previous AFD has been deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet. So, I'm unsure whether or not it is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Mok

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2006. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, Poetry, Ireland, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Finding sources was really easy for this person, they have multiple books with multiple reviews, and numerous interviews. I removed a lot of the material that I couldn't find sources for other than her website and CV. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading that I wanted to clarify that I'm not being snippy with @4meter4 I'm just so used to having to do deep dives into archives at AfD that this was a welcome change of pace. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Turaccio

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

Another article promoting a non-notable adherent to the "walled garden" type series of articles on Menotti Lerro's so-called Empathic Movement (Empathism. All of the sources are primary/press-releases or promo. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACADEMIC. A before search finds a few things he wrote, but his h-index on Google Scholar and Scopus is non-existant. I did find something the Menotti Lerro wrote on him and other Empathism manifesto signatories, but that is obviously connected. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvio Annese

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

Another article on a non-notable artist and professor from a "walled garden"-type series of articles promoting the "members" of Menotti Lerro's "movement/manifesto", Empathism and his New Manifesto of Arts. The subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG, all the sources are primary/connected except the Milano Today source that simple name-checks him in a mention. As an academic, he fails WP:NACADEMIC as he has a h-index of zero on Google Scholar and Scopus, and all I could find was an article written by Lerro about his own (Lerro's) so-called Empathic movement. I beleive this is WP:PROMO and should be deleted. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Casciello

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

This article on an Italian artist is part of a sort-of "walled garden" of articles on artists and academics affiliated with Menotti Lerro's so-called movement, Empathism and who signed his manifesto. The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG as the sources are all primary sources except, perhaps one, however that may be a press release. Fails WP:NARTIST. The article claims he was in the Venice Bienale 3 times, altho this could not be verified by the Venice Bienale itself [1]], so perhaps he was in one of the satellite shows but not represented in the actual Bienale. As an academic he fails WP:NACADEMIC, as there is an h-index score of zero on Google Scholar and Scopus I found a few things he wrote, but they were not cited by others. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Chow Wang

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

Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It feels like there should be more sources about this woman. Searching on her name I find nothing about her but lots of hits on the building at Wellesley that she endowed. There is the one NY Times article about her and her husband giving $25M to the college, and a short mention in another NYT article, both already in the references. There is the fact that she was a trustee at Rockefeller University, and was on the boards of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and other major organizations - and yet, I don't find independent sources. She feels notable. I will cycle back hoping that someone else has better search results. Lamona (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Peek, Liz (2007-05-08). "Lulu Wang Throttles Back (Except on the Racetrack)". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Ms. Wang is one of the original members of the Committee of 100, a group of high-level Chinese-Americans — who include I.M. Pei, Yo-Yo Ma, and Oscar Tang — created shortly after the Tiananmen Square crackdown ... The move was accidental. Her father’s job as a senior official with the Nationalist Party took the Chow family to India during the war years of the 1940s. Ms. Wang was born in New Delhi under the crudest of circumstances. ... Following this path, Ms. Wang moved on to Bankers Trust Co., where she was soon responsible for analyzing about 20% of the Standard & Poor’s 500. ... Ms. Wang opened Tupelo Capital Management in 1998. Her husband, Anthony Wang, had made a fortune at Computer Associates, a firm founded by his brother, which ran into problems after Tony Wang retired in 1992."
2. Zernike, Kate (2000-04-16). "Couple Gives Wellesley a Record $25 Million". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Lulu Wang is the founder of Tupelo Capital Management, a name chosen tongue-in-cheek with reference to one of Wellesley's more girlish traditions. ... Mrs. Wang has been a member of Wellesley's board of trustees since 1988, and is the first woman to head the board's investment committee, which is in charge of investing the college's endowment, valued at about $1 billion. She also heads the finance committee of the New York Community Trust and serves on a number of other boards in New York, including the Rockefeller Family Fund, WNYC and the Metropolitan Museum of Art."
3. Norton, Leslie P. (2002-12-09). "The Chinese Connection". Barron's. ProQuest 201096765. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "One newly prominent donor is Lulu Wang, a patrician Chinese-American who runs Tupelo Capital Management, a New York money-management firm. Wang came here with her family from Shanghai in 1948; a vacation became permanent immigration as her father, tied to the Nationalists, opted to stay in America. Her $25 million gift to Wellesley College, from which she graduated in 1966, was given to build a new student center. Construction on the Wang Campus Center will start next year, and finish in 2004. Wang has been active for years in philanthropic circles -- she's a board member of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York public radio station WNYC, and Wellesley. She's also funding Bill Moyers' coming PBS series "Becoming American: The Chinese Experience.""
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Agnew, Harriet (2022-03-03). "Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood on everything from deflation to Elon Musk". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
    The article notes: "In 1998, as the dotcom bubble was reaching its climax, Wood and one of her colleagues, Lulu Wang, left Jennison to set up a fund in New York called Tupelo Capital Management. By the end of March 2000, the peak of the tech bubble, Tupelo’s assets under management had reached almost $1.4bn, according to a regulatory filing. Twelve months later, Tupelo’s assets had slumped to around $200mn, according to a separate regulatory filing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lulu Chow Wang to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Barrons article is about her father, and gives her a single paragraph, and one that is very similar to other short paragraphs about her. I find it interesting that the NYT article (which also has 2 paragraphs about her, the rest refers to she and her husband as a unit) says that they declined to be interviewed. This may indicate that she has been reticent about publicity, and that may explain why we don't have much about her. Ditto the Financial Times article (which has only a mention of Wang) which says "Wang declined to comment." I did find one more article about her at msnbc. This has a lot of her words so it resembles an interview but isn't presented in interview form. I think it's worth digging, but I am not finding the kind of analysis that would be independent. Everything I see just reiterates the same few facts about her. It's kind of frustrating, I admit. Lamona (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for uncovering the MSNBC article which is a very good find. That in-depth profile solidifies her notability. I think there is enough nontrivial coverage across all the sources for Lulu Chow Wang to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the two New York Times sources and the ones mentioned above I found one from MSNBC. There are others as well to pass WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per detailed analysis of sources presented by Cunard. Piscili (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard and the MSNBC profile. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian exonyms

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; an alternative to reading this article would be reading an Estonian dictionary. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms, which resulted in the French equivalent of this article being deleted. As argued there, this list is an indiscriminate list of place names. I agree that an article about the linguistic and historical aspects of the formation of place names in Estonian would be notable, but that is not what this is. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Dastak

AfDs for this article:

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

I have multiple reasons for proposing this article for deletion. Firstly, the page creator is blocked. Secondly, all the references provided are fabricated. The page creator has deceptively used the term 'National Dastak' in the title to mislead other editors. The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:WEB from any perspective." Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources do exist, but they're all trivial mentions in lists or attributions - not the kind of discussion of the subject needed to show notability. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is not G5 eligible, as the creator was not a sock of a then-blocked editor: as such the creator's block is not relevant. And the basic facts provided in the article do check out, it's obviously not a hoax. Whether it's notable, I'm less certain: there is coverage, including articles focused on on this channel: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and a handful of others. There's not a lot of detail, hence "weak". Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed the page and the sources and I do see where the mislead was attempted where title of the sources were changed.
- Source 1 misleading title on the page is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj" but the actual title is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom is Helping Dalits Reclaim and Reassert Their Identity". There is nothing in the source except for passing mention that says "Yadav has previously worked with news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj."
- Source 2 misleading title on the page is "National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a Bahujan perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media" but the actual title is "BSP war room is turning up the heat on BJP and SP". The source has nothing significant except for passing mention that says "There are also news portals like National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a 'Bahujan' perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media."
- Source 3 has passing mention that goes "There are YouTube channels widely watched by Dalits, including National Dastak...".
- Source 4 has passing mention that goes "Web channel National Dastak played the video of Chandrashekhar Azad addressing the protesters."
- Source 5 has misleading title on the page that says "As per a report of the National Dastak, Riya Singh, a Dalit will pursue Ph D in Women's Studies" but the actual title of the source is "Riya Singh, a Dalit, tops TISS entrance exam". This source has nothing except for passing mention that is shown in the misleading title of the source.
- Source 6 has passing mention that says "In Uttar Pradesh, BJP is the single largest party across the polls except for National Dastak which is predicting BSP victory."
- Source 7 has passing mention that says "Speaking to National Dastak after organizing ‘Blood donation’ programme".
- Source 8 has passing mention "Videos on National Dastak have over 88 crore views." All the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the sources that exist, not ones that are in the article. When I have provided other sources above, you need to demonstrate that they do not confer notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not look at the sources you provided in your vote but I did now. Source 1 is giving me 404 error, source 2,4,5,6 are all same WP:ROUTINE news about union government asking YouTube to take down ‘National Dastak’ from its platform. Source 2 is likely unreliable as Mumbai Mirror's about us page has comments from Wikipedia and the disclaimer says that it does not take responsibility for the reports by contributors. Source 3 is about the Journalist Anmol Pritam who works for YouTube channel National Dastak and was forced to chant a slogan by a mob and the article has also claims made by the journalist himself to another news media. This is all routine news. Not enough to pass WP:NCORP imv. RangersRus (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vanamonde93 added Ref and WP:NEXIST there is Hindi coverage about the channel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The issue is that the additional sources provided do not meet WP:WEBCRIT. All of the sources except for two fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so they are not reliable. This one simply mentions a journalist that works for National Dastak while this one provides some detail but isn't in-depth (and if considered in-depth, that leaves one reference). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep with million subscribers, this channel is one of the most important YouTube news platform and I think a lot of reference will be found if searched.

Admantine123 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, it's the responsibility of editors wanting to Keep an article to go out and locate those reliable sources as Vanamonde93 has done. I'm not sure who else you thought would spend the time in this "search". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Khel Sawalyancha

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

Cannot locate sources to show notability. There are a few mentions but nothing that amount to significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because this is a 1976 film and cast, music director and director are all notable and it contributes to the notability of the film. Or redirect to Vasant Joglekar. Very opposed to deletion of the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen many notable actors act films that aren't notable. So, citing the notable casts of the film is good but not when there aren't sources even to verify that they acted the film. This is eventually not part of WP:NFIC#2. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: The cast+the director+the music director are notable, and it is a 1976 film, therefore (perhaps non-English) off-line contemporary sources might (or more likely, probably) exist (see below). I also indicate an ATD, fwiw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am bit confused, You added a SourcesExist template yourself, was it by mistake? And sources have been added since nomination, some allowing partial verification of the cast (or simply look at the poster if you wish), some looking reliable but not allowing it so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis.
- Source 1 is unreliable source and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
- Source 2 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
- Source 3 is a link to a song on YouTube video. Nothing significant here either.

I looked for sources online to get significant coverage and WP:NFILM but after 4 pages of search, I could not find any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I referenced two sources in Award section and noted a film in several Marathi books such as -.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Morekar (talk • contribs)
@User:Morekar, the books you provided here aren't verifiable. Please read WP:OFFLINESOURCES and provide the full bibliographical details, most importantly, the page numbers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.@SafariScribe Allows to verify the film was a great success according to sources (not to mention the cast, plot, themes, etc). Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. None of the new sources with Google books links are verifiable. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation with page number(s) to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. RangersRus (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I hate redirects being turned up after redirecting and I would prefer deletion to an obviously non notable article. While we try to save an article as much as possible per WP:ATD, we should be careful to avoid leaving non notable ones as redirects (my opinion). This article, to all eyes, doesn't meet WP:NFILM and if the casts are notable, then there should be a bit, atleast, WP:SIGCOV. Bearing the lack of SIGCOV in mind, I would be ready to redirect to the director's article (who also clearly doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR) if reliable sources that could be used to verify the cast and crew of the film are provided. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are imv sources on the page to verify partially the cast and crew. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the changes have been reviewed and analyzed in my last note. RangersRus (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them, indeed, the Gbooks refs, are mentioned as a whole in your general note ("reviewed and analysed" is a bit of an overstatement, I’m afraid, as yourself stated you couldn’t access them, :D); but still, the page has significantly changed. Also see WP: Systemic bias, thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised by your response. As i said earlier the so called "significant changes", the Google books fail verification with no page number and inline citation and that is my review and analysis about it if you could pay attention. See WP:V. RangersRus (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t mean to surprise you but I did pay attention, thank you; that is precisely why I think that calling your note a ’review and analysis’ of those sources is a tiny bit misleading. You just couldn’t access and verify them. It would be better indeed if we could, but again see the link that I provided above. The changes are significant, maybe not satisfactory, I agree, because we cannot check the full text, but significant, they are, and stating otherwise is also rather a little misleading. People who have visited the page before nomination can check it now and see if they can verify the added sources, for example or if they find them useful; hence my insertion of the template, which your comment tries to undermine unduly, in my view. If so-called should apply to something it is not to the 'significant changes', I should say. Consider this my final reply to you as I do not care very much for the tone of your last reply, to be honest. Thank you again for your reply and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but it is no help and thank you for your final reply. Nothing significant as expected. RangersRus (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a rapid check allowed me to verify 3 of the sources added through Gbooks (I added the page for 2 ). I see now even less reasons to doubt the veracity of the sources added by Morekar. I thought there might have been a transcription problem but no, the title in most of the cited English sources apparently corresponds to the title of the article. I’ll do my best to add the pages of other sources cited, though, as this might be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) (I have added the pages to all of the significant references added by Morekar, that should now be considered verifiable and verified :D; I will not re-add the AfD changed template, though :D; )[reply]

How are these "significant references" again? Verifiability is not notability unfortunately. Are you able to show what RangerRus is requesting below? I am willing to withdraw the nomination if it turns out t be significant coverage but I cannot locate anything either. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took time and verified all the pages on each Google sources on the page and the claims it made (even though the onus is on the editor who adds the source to provide verification), there is nothing significant. No significant coverage in any source and even the source under reception is not even a review but just a passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was making that assumption based on no replies from previous requests as well. Thanks for taking the time. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Morekar: Can you please provide page numbers along with inline citation of what the sources actually say to check if it is just an entry or something significant. We need significant coverage and I googled but just found entries and nothing significant. If you can provide all the information that helps with the content for verification, it will help. RangersRus (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to verify all the sources you added and as expected nothing significant to pass WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants are invited, by the template inserted above in the discussion, to read the page and not simply assume or assert the changes are not significant and the sources add no weight to notability. A single source, for example, stating the film was a ’superhit’ (source wording) is significant per se. And denying it is at best bizarre.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage. What is "bizarre" is that two editors have asked for the excerpts of those references that some are citing as significant yet nothing has been provided except assertions.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of whether the available sources provide significant coverage would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Chol-hyok

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG. The one source provided is not nearly enough. Redirect to 2010 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Article was already nominated for deletion by the same user less than three months ago, which resulted in a clear consensus to keep. Nothing has changed since then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that the previous result was incorrect as the article still fails WP:GNG. Was far from clear. Article should not be kept due to ideological reasons. Simione001 (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You personally may disagree with that consensus, but that does not mean that you are correct. Re-nominating it so soon when there's been zero change in anything – just because you don't like the original outcome – is borderline disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say i didnt like it, I'm saying that it was incorrect based on the sourcing. Are you saying that the one source is the article is sufficient to pass WP:GNG? If so I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on the guidelines if you are assessing the article objectively. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep – Per BeanieFan11. Little time has passed since the last AfD, nothing that justifies a change in consensus. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first AFD nomination votes/comments. This article was here in the AFD just about three months ago with huge support to keep and should not have been returned within this short period especially by the same user who nominated it then. Piscili (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Seung-il (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]