Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

16 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< October 15 October 17 >

Purge server cache

Martin Boďa

[edit]
Martin Boďa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite playing for a professional level, I can't find enough significant coverage of this Slovak men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. In terms of reliable secondary sources, SME looks decent but GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage, while SP21 heavily relies on quotes without independent analysis. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meer Abdul Wahid Bilgrami

[edit]
Meer Abdul Wahid Bilgrami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Islam (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masato Ishida

[edit]
Masato Ishida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 18 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Moriyama

[edit]
Kenji Moriyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 24 games during a single season of Japan’s third league being his claim to notability. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Miura

[edit]
Osamu Miura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 25 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Musayeva

[edit]
Jamila Musayeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources cited in the article do not meet WP:SIGCOV. They include blogs, Medium posts, interviews, and primarily passing mentions. The article from The Caspian Post appears promotional or sponsored to me, and we also lack consensus on its reliability. Even if we ignore that, a single article cannot establish notability for the subject. I searched for more reliable sources with significant coverage but was unable to find any, only passing mentions similar to what is already in the article. The subject also fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, as their books have not been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m an author of this article. I’m willing to respond to every argument.
Before publishing the article, I have read WP:AUTHOR (Wikipedia’s Notability Guideline, section "Creative professionals"). According to this section, a person is notable if "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". My article meets this criterion, because of following reasons: (1) First of all, Musayeva is interviewed and/or cited as an expert by the mainstream media mentioned in the article (Bussiness Insider, Newsweek, Fox News and others). This means that these big media companies recognize her position as an authority on the subject. (2) Secondly, she is a YouTuber with over million of subscribers and over 40 million views of her videos, which are big numbers, especially given the fact that etiquette is not a common interest. This establishes her as one of the most popular/successful etiquette experts in the world. Isn’t that enough to claim she is notable?
(3) Moreover, the article is about her, not about her books.
I have used multiple secondary and independent sources, mostly interviews with her (which is understandable, because the interviews with a creative person are often the most fruitful source about their lives and achievements). Half of the sources are mainstream media outlets such as Fox News, Daily Mail and WFLA-TV.
I didn’t include any self-published source.
I have used two sources published by the subject of the article, which is permitted. There is no doubt to the authenticy of these sources, as they were published on the official page of the subject of the article. Moreover, the article is not based primarily on such sources (there are only two).
I tried my best to meet the Wikipedia's Guidelines.
I will be taking care of the article. She is getting more and more recognition from the media every year. There will be more sources coming in the near future. I will be updating the article and bettering it. But please don't delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlody1312: If you want to work on this article, draftification can be done. However, interviews, sources claiming the subject as an expert, and view numbers alone do not make the subject notable. What’s your opinion on draftification? Please let me know. GrabUp - Talk 09:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian exonyms

[edit]
Estonian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While this Afd discussion was up, the articles for Galician/Maltese/Catalan/Swedish exonyms were deleted for the same reasoning
SJD Willoughby (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right but I know other articles on exonyms that were sent to AFD have been kept. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar Burgström

[edit]
Ingemar Burgström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess the Swedish sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VASP Flight 780

[edit]
VASP Flight 780 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While tragic, there is no indication that this airplane crash meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT; if there was significant, long-lasting coverage, I can't find any sources to prove it. And I have no reason to believe there is likely to be long-lasting coverage: three deaths, crashed into the forest, and the crash was caused by pilot error.

Current three sources/links, used here and on the deWiki article, are unusable for notability/unusable.[1] is a user-generated wiki, [2] is a government report on the crash (they're required to make these for every single incident), [3] is a YouTube video of a cockpit recording. My WP:BEFORE revealed two YouTube videos:[4] [5], both unusable.

I have no prejudice against selectively merging/redirecting, should a suitable target be found. Given the limited ramifications of the initial crash, even if the topic can be shown notable a stand-alone page would likely not be warranted GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: it received reasonable coverage in Portuguese-language sources, as per pt:Voo VASP Cargo 780#Referências (note: there was no interlanguage link before). fgnievinski (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link! I'll have a look through them. The ptWiki does appear to be of better quality than the enWiki and deWiki articles.
  • [6] is user generated
  • [7] does not mention the plane crash or the plane itself
  • [8] is the same crash report (and cited four times)
  • [9] is the Aviationbase wiki again
Then there's four 1992 news reports, all dated to within a day of the accident. The ptWiki links are broken, but the headlines appear to be the fairly routine "a plane crash happened, people died" type story that, while useful, was something I knew was likely to exist and doesn't change my arguments about WP:NEVENT, lasting coverage, WP:GNG, and WP:PAGEDECIDE.
The information about a social media user visiting the plane crash is new to me, however. For reference, here are the links:
  • [10] (no author credited)
  • [11] (no author credited)
Both of these article, to me, mostly seem to focus on the influencer's trip to the site of the planecrash. They each spare a paragraph or two to sum up the crash itself, but it's mostly spent discussing the influencer. I'm also not an expert in Brazilian newspapers, especially very local ones, but I'm having a hard time finding information about either news source. juruaonline.com.br does not have an "about me" type page- all attempts to get one redirect you to their "advertise with us"/"submit a story" type pages. juruaemtempo.com.br does actually give you some information about its reporters, but none of them were apparently willing to attach their name to this piece. So far, they are still the only examples of any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE we have for this crash. And while these two sources are not enough to prove notability to me (I really don't think this article says anything that isn't already covered in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737#1990s), they might be enough for somebody else to decide this is notable. So, thank you again for finding them @Fgnievinski! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also did a quick search for sources and can't find any online newspaper articles about the event. [12] fgnievinski (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

[edit]
Jason Parker (security researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiographical article, content is not substantiated by the sources and it does not seem possible to write more than a stub about the subject. The sources almost entirely briefly mention the subject in connection with a security vulnerability, some include short quotes from the subject, none seem to provide details on the subject themselves. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide more details about what isn't substantiated by the sources? The small handful of paragraphs without citations have information that's given in articles cited elsewhere. If you could point to any specifics, I would be happy to either show which article(s) it comes from, or if one of the more recent citations that discuss it have been missed, add them.
In a lot of cases, the notability of a subject comes from their work, so I'm a bit confused how this would be different from many other articles on Wikipedia. Is this simply a categorization problem? In the public sector circles where this information travels, the name and works are quite well known; the number of high quality sources would also suggest this.
As for your comment about it not being possible to write more than a stub, I have to disagree. There is a lot more detail about the works and their specific effects that could be added, but I didn't find it prudent for myself to add that. Additionally, WP:Stub suggests that some editors and the bot would find that 250, 300, or 500 words (this one is 650 as of this note) is an appropriate length to not be considered a stub.
Having said all of that, I note your status on Wikipedia, and understand that there is little likelihood of this article staying. NorthAntara (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else.
Being the primary author of an article about yourself is not recommended. You were extremely transparent, which is appreciated, it is just very challenging to write a neutral article based entirely on verifiable sources as the subject of the article yourself. With that said, here are some article about security researchers that have a tone and structure I'd suggest emulating: Tavis Ormandy, Eva Galperin, and Charlie Miller. Cutting inferences such as "leading to increased awareness and remediation of these issues" and the entire impact section would be the first edits I personally would make. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were the type to make bets on AfD results, I'd say this'd most likely close as no consensus like the Ian Coldwater AfD. Not sure if I'll dig in to see if I can find more sources for this one. We don't really do field specific versions of BIO for "coverage is pretty rare for this field" (except for academia) but on a quick review I'd say it's borderline for BASIC, not an outright fail. Not (yet) going to make it a !vote though, even if should it be possible or make sense to enter one for no consensus (wouldn't make much of a difference anyway since it's not a vote). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagon and Trencher

[edit]
Flagon and Trencher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A clearer source eval on the newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, Where are the newly found sources? Both @Toweli: and I objected to keeping the article based on the coverage provided on 24 September, as it’s nowhere near reliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, A clearer and deeper source evaluation is appreciated, along with more inputs for clear consensus. The presence of multiple references with passing mentions could mean there might be some notability, but sans SIGCOV. Hence, relisted for more inputs. If not, it can be deleted soon. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modhalum Kaadhalum

[edit]
Modhalum Kaadhalum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is actually the third deletion discussion. Originally deleted under this discussion in early 2023 prior to being recreated under alternative name which was then a no consensus at this discussion. Out of the 21 references listed on the page this is the only reference that may be notable but I cannot read it so not sure. The rest fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or are otherwise unreliable. Would recommend a redirect to the original program it is based on (Yeh Hai Mohabbatein). CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Also have a strong references from (The Times of India, medianews4u.com, Dinamalar, Indian Express Tamil). It was one of the famous show, and also notable cast. Original program and Tamil version are very different.. story was also changes. also cast also different. the original version was aired 1,895 episodes (lot of cast and long story), Tamil version was aired only 304 episodes. i am against of recommend a redirect to the original program. i don't Kmow why, You are very interested in deleting this article. This is third time for Nomination of Modhalum Kaadhalum for deletion. Strong Keep--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references that you state (which I am assuming are the ones on the page) are all unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Cast, number of episodes, it being a "famous show" has no bearing on notability unless there is significant coverage from RELIABLE sources to support. Can you link to the sources that are significant (and reliable)? Please do not link to anything that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a source evaluation: simply grouping all the TOI sources under RSNOI without properly evaluating each and every source seems inappropriate especially when the RFC on TOI does acknowledge that only some articles have issues.
After all, this is an Indian TV show and the only sources that will discuss this is Indian sources. Simply eliminating almost every source under this RSNOI from an information page doesn’t seem like a well thought-out rationale, especially when only TOI is on WP:RSPS. — Karnataka 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that was not done. They were evaluated and are churnalism falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If there is one you feel isn't, please provide the link and I will have a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a perspective to have. However, being usable does not mean it can be used to establish notability. That is also the reason why I did not discredit these simply for being from the TOI. The many RfCs have concluded that the TOI needs additional consideration to determine if if it reliable for that specific reference. I checked them all and these are churnalism and promotional. If you want to provide some that you feel can be used to establish notability, I will have a look and withdraw the nomination if they are usable to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafey Kazi

[edit]
Rafey Kazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I draftified the BLP, but J1477 (talk · contribs) the creator of the BLP reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. I don’t understand why new editors aren’t using the AFC route and instead revert draftifications, which just leads articles to deletions. Anyway, the BLP definitely reads like PROMO and I suspect there’s a COI at play as the same creator also attempted to make a BLP on the subject back in 2021, but it was deleted under G11.I don’t see it meeting GNG at all, nor does it fulfill any of the criteria outlined in the additional criteria for BLPs. Fwiw, an IP 98.201.3.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also edited the BLP from Houston and COBAIT, whose CEO is Rafey Kazi, is also based there. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting finding. J1477 also previously created a BLP for Laura Mohiuddin, who works as a Digital Marketing Strategist at the U.S.-based company COBAIT, where Rafey Kazi is the CEO. This definitely proves a COI, even though J1477 isn't ready to acknowledge it on the their talk page when asked. Also, J1477 created a BLP for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who's Laura's father, according to Laura's own website. @Axad12: Do you think I should bring this up at COI/N as well? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely. The related nature of the article subjects and the user's evasion in relation to answering about non-financial CoI gives it away. Axad12 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see that the user denied any CoI (well, technically they have denied being paid, they haven't actually denied any relationship with the subject). However, it is a demonstrable fact that as least one of the sources (PressNewsRoom) that they point to on their talk page [21] is not a WP:RS source. From the relevant link (here [22]) select 'add your story' (top right of page) and you arrive at a page starting If you are interested in adding your story, press release or other news, [etc], which presumably explains why the article is highly promotional and was only published a few weeks ago in an apparent attempt at astroturfing (i.e. installing articles in the media in an attempt to later demonstrate notability on Wikipedia). Similarly, the other source (The Org, [23]) appears to be user generated content and thus also is not WP:RS compliant. Axad12 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that concerns have been raised regarding a potential conflict of interest (COI) in relation to the articles I’ve written about Mohiuddin Ahmed, Laura Mohiuddin, and Rafey Kazi, and I’d like to clarify my motivations and address the issue directly.
    First and foremost, my intention in writing these articles has been to contribute to Wikipedia by documenting notable individuals based on research and publicly available sources. Here is the context of how I came across these figures and why I believe there is no question of COI:
    1. Mohiuddin Ahmed: Being a proud Bangladeshi, I have been drawn to Mohiuddin Ahmed for a long time because of his well-known role as a freedom fighter during Bangladesh's war of independence from Pakistan and his subsequent diplomatic career. I watched many of his TV shows and read his columns on renowned news platforms in Bangladesh. His historical significance and contributions to diplomacy are well documented, and I felt they merited inclusion in Wikipedia as part of my general interest in notable historical figures, especially those connected to South Asian history.
    2. Laura Mohiuddin: While researching Mohiuddin Ahmed’s family and connections, I came across Laura Mohiuddin a long time ago. I was particularly interested in her involvement with social entrepreneurship through the Infolady and other programs, which had a meaningful impact on empowering women in rural areas. I believed that her innovative work in these field was notable, and that’s why I decided to write an article on her. It was through this research that I learned of her professional career in digital marketing.
    3. Rafey Kazi: During my research on Laura Mohiuddin, I discovered her connection to COBAIT, and that is where I came across Rafey Kazi. I was fascinated by his dual career as an IT leader and cricketer and found that his role in both fields warranted attention. His involvement in veteran cricket, especially the Over-50s Cricket World Cup, and his leadership in the technology sector were both well documented through independent sources. Rafey Kazi has been recognized as one of America’s PremierExperts® for his contributions to the IT sector and cybersecurity. This is a significant honor that reflects his impact in a highly specialized field. Additionally, he has been featured in Fast Company magazine in a full-page spread titled 'You Can’t Get Unhacked,' further underscoring his expertise and thought leadership in technology and security. My intent in writing about Rafey Kazi was to highlight his achievements in these fields, not to promote any particular organization or person.
    4. No Promotional Intent: I want to make it very clear that I did not promote any company, link, or specific organization in any of the articles I’ve written. My goal was to ensure that notable contributions from individuals in the fields of technology, cricket, diplomacy, and social entrepreneurship were represented on Wikipedia. At no point did I attempt to advertise or promote any business or product, and I have adhered to Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability.
    5. Contribution Beyond These Articles: It’s also worth noting that I have contributed to Wikipedia by writing and editing articles on various other topics unrelated to these individuals. My editing activity reflects a broad interest in contributing to the platform, and the articles related to Mohiuddin Ahmed, Laura Mohiuddin, and Rafey Kazi just happen to be part of that larger effort to highlight underrepresented but notable individuals.
    6. Addressing Sources: I acknowledge the concerns about the use of certain sources like PressNewsRoom and The Org, and I am more than willing to improve the articles by replacing these with more reliable sources where available. However, my use of these sources was based on their availability at the time, and I believed they provided verifiable information about the subjects. I am open to working with other editors to strengthen the articles with more widely recognized sources.
    Conclusion:
    In conclusion, my contributions were driven by an interest in documenting notable figures from different fields. While I understand that the individuals I’ve written about are connected, I did not set out to write about them with any promotional intent or COI. I believe that each of these individuals has made independent contributions that deserve recognition. I remain committed to upholding Wikipedia’s neutrality standards and am happy to address any specific concerns to improve the quality and reliability of the articles.
    Additionally, most notable figures are already well-documented on Wikipedia, and as a contributor, it’s my goal to bring attention to other individuals who have made significant contributions but may not have had the same level of public visibility. While widely recognized figures tend to get covered quickly, there are many notable people in the fields of diplomacy, technology, social entrepreneurship, and sports who deserve a place on Wikipedia. My intent is to highlight these figures, particularly those from diverse backgrounds, whose contributions might otherwise go unnoticed.
    In conclusion, I want to emphasize that my intent in contributing to Wikipedia has always been with good intentions—to highlight notable individuals and organizations who may otherwise go unnoticed. I have made numerous contributions to the platform, all with the goal of expanding the knowledge available and ensuring that underrepresented figures receive the recognition they deserve. I have worked hard to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, and it would indeed be disappointing if my account were to be banned when no conflict of interest exists. My only goal was to contribute positively to the community, and I hope this is recognized in the review of my contributions.
    J1477 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    J1477, Since you continue to deny your COI, despite clear evidence, I have no choice but to report you to the COI/N at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#J1477 (talk · contribs). — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Clark

[edit]
Tommy Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search only returns brief mentions/plot summaries that do not contribute to notability. Has been tagged for notability since June 2022. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Suvarna

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Santhosh Suvarna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual, all coverage is just routine information about updates/events from poker news sites. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coinrule

[edit]
Coinrule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill crypto company, no noteworthy third party coverage to speak of unfortunately. Had meant to nominate this two weeks ago but it slipped my mind. In any case, here it is now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Tsuda (YouTuber)

[edit]
Daisuke Tsuda (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NPEOPLE Paradoctor (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion. It would have been helpful if there had been a more comprehensive deletion nomination statement that demonstrated a BEFORE had been done instead of just a policy acronym which doesn't explain much at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Allen (bridge)

[edit]
Alexander Allen (bridge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no significant or independent coverage of this bridge player, which is demanded by WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The NYT source is not significant coverage, just a mention, and likewise the bridgewinners.com source. And the bulletin published by the American Contract Bridge League is not independent. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Kumar (racing driver)

[edit]
Sandeep Kumar (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as they have only competed in domestic categories (despite the success listed in the tables, none of the championships meet GNG for articles about them), is in clear violation of COI and reads like promotional material MSportWiki (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Palmer (racing driver)

[edit]
Matt Palmer (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as a low-level domestic Australian amateur racing driver who achieved no notable success, and none of the sources are appropriate (one primary, one social media and one from a business register). MSportWiki (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Moscaritolo

[edit]
Vincent Moscaritolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO, effectively zero reliable and secondary sources. Brandon (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete. Vincent MOSCARITOLO made a significant contribution to the end to end cryptography used by modern messaging systems today.

He is still active, publishing on Substack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4th-amendment (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issue resolved.
you might have posted on wrong thread 4th-amendment, this is for a nightclub shooting. Canary757 (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Canary757: the comment was actually posted correctly to this page but at the top, which made it appear misleading in the log which is where you must've encountered it. I was similarly confused from seeing it in the log. I have since moved the comments to the bottom of this AfD to rectify the issue. Left guide (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is very poorly written, and "having a Substack" is far from the threshold for notability. I do not see any secondary sources, either in the article or in a Google search. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep in here so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Duggan

[edit]
Emily Duggan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Ueno

[edit]
Naoto Ueno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Obvious WP:COI issues, an argument could possibly be made for WP:NACADEMIC. There are a handful of in depth interviews in academic journals, director of the UH Cancer Center, and while the highest cited papers on Google Scholar are with many authors with the subject in the middle, there are quite a few papers for which he is the lead/corresponding author that are relatively highly cited for the age of the paper. I'm not convinced of the magnitude of impact of the scholarly work and independence/possible journalistic COI of interview coverage is not clear.
Cyanochic (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively. He has 30,000 citations and an h-index of 84, but in a very high-citation field. However even ignoring the highly-cited consortia papers, he still has several impactful research articles as the last/corresponding author (top cites: 576, 342, 231) and as first author (223), not to mention a lot of reviews in those authorship positions (554, 538, 237, 208; 235), though I don't give these as much weight. I've collected some of the more in-depth secondary analyses of work attributed to him as first/senior author below, which might help demonstrate a stronger case for C1. These could also be used to make his research section more NPOV.
Secondary/independent analysis
  • ~60 words

    Clinical evidence of graft-versus-BC effect has been reported in a limited number of patients (2/10) by Ueno et al,2 and in one anecdotal case by Eibl et al.1 However, the study by Ueno et al was different from ours in that it included patients without progressive disease, adopted a myeloablative conditioning regimen with demonstrated antitumor activity, and performed DLI in only one case without response.

  • ~120 words

    Meanwhile, other researchers think that looking at the top of a signaling pathway doesn't make sense when what really counts is whether the cell is proliferating or not. For that reason, Naoto T. Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., [...] has looked at the activity of a key cell cycle regulator, CDK2, in sensitive and resistant tumor cell lines. They found a correlation between increasing resistance and increasing CDK2 kinase activity, which promotes cell cycling. The amount of protein or activity of proteins in the pathway steps between EGFR and CDK2 do not seem to be related to erlotinib sensitivity, according to Ueno's data. [quote]

  • ~160 words

    An update of experience at the MD Anderson Cancer Center with inflammatory breast cancer over the past 20 years was published by Ueno and colleagues [4]. [...] ... Ueno and colleagues found that 71% of all patients had a response to anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, with 12% of patients achieving a complete response [4]. In addition, [...] (truncated to avoid CV)

  • ~120 words

    Experience at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over the past 20 years was reported by Ueno et al. [87]. One hundred seventy patients [...]. ... The study by Ueno et al. also showed the importance of response to induction chemotherapy. [...]

  • ~50 words

    Ueno and colleagues reported that 74% of patients with IBC experienced a response from an anthracycline-based regimen, and 12% had a complete response. ... Many of the women in the review by Ueno and colleagues initially presented with inoperable disease. After induction chemotherapy, 95% of these patients were able to have surgery.

  • ~20 words

    Current treatment recommendations for IBC are multimodal with combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by mastectomy and then concluding with chemotherapy and radiation. This regimen is reported by Ueno et al. 10to show a [quote]

  • ~160 words

    In 2008 Ueno and colleagues published a retrospective analysis of 66 metastatic breast cancer patients, 39 of whom had undergone myeloablative HCT/AT between 1992 and 2000. Data were [...]. These initial experiences showed that an allotransplant-based approach could result in long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer, but the rate of TRM was a serious drawback. ... In the already mentioned retrospective analysis conducted by Ueno and colleagues [42], 27 of the 66 patients [...]

  • ~120 words, but by a former coauthor

    The first series of patients was reported by Ueno et al [6] from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Ten patients [...] ... The largest unpublished series was presented by Ueno and Niederwieser on behalf of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) [...]

  • ~45 words

    Erlotinib inhibits triple negative breast cancer as shown by Ueno and Zhang[30] when they generated a SUM149 xenograft model by implanting luciferase expressing SUM149 cells into mammary pads of athymic nude mice. The results indicated significant inhibition of tumour growth at doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clear Keep -- As @JoelleJay has noted, the nominator's notability guidelines omit the most relevant, WP:PROF (a notability criteria that predates and is independent of WP:N) where it is clear that Ueno is clearly more accomplished and notable than the average professor. Full-professor, head of a major NIH research program, at an R1 University, with significant third-party coverage of the appointment: ASCO-Post is the publication of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, so their coverage is very relevant. As far as the actual citation numbers, these vary from field to field hugely, but I can't remember a researcher in any field with an h-index of 84 or above ever being deleted -- medicine is a high pub. + high citation field, so the numbers need to be much higher than say Estonian studies, but my experience is that borderline is usually 30-50 in that field.
The article was probably created too early: the notability tags from 2011 were probably correct and I would have likely been on the delete side then, but much has changed since then and regardless of past COI or other mistakes, now the subject of the article is notable; thus keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google scholar has him with an h-factor of 105. He is still active, I counted 39 publications in 2024. While this may be a high citation field, and many of these papers have multiple authors, I feel he passes #C1 of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tinnesz

[edit]
Sam Tinnesz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. A few billboard chart listings doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. ZimZalaBim talk 02:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–South Africa relations

[edit]
Bulgaria–South Africa relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article currently contains no sources. Unable to find evidence the topic meets WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Africa, and Bulgaria. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced for 16 years. The only sources I found were primary sources from the respective governments. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - again, a reminder on WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST is needed. Obviously there is scope for expansion of the article. South Africa declared war on Bulgaria on December 13, 1941, and was one of 12 states that signed the peace treaty with Bulgaria in 1947. Diplomatic relations were then again broken off in teh context of South Africa's isolation during Cold War and anti-Apartheid struggle. Bulgaria was an active participant in the efforts to support the anti-Apartheid struggle inside South Africa (see for example [25]) as well as in international fora. Formal diplomatic relations began to be reestablished in 1990. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware of WP:BEFORE. It requires a nominator to search for sources. Why are you suggesting this didn't happen? The source you reference is "A list of positive interactions between the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) and the African National Congress (ANC)" which I am not convinced assists. AusLondonder (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shigakishi

[edit]
Shigakishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly a hoax article. The non-English text given on this article is fake; the Chinese characters given correspond to Prince Imseong, whose Japanese name reading is Rinshō Taishi and Korean name reading is Imsŏng t‘aeja. The references given are incredibly vague; it's just the overall names of some really extensive works of history. Searching online I can't find any reference to this person existing. seefooddiet (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phycomin

[edit]
Phycomin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub was previously blanked and redirected but term is not mentioned at target, so currently it does not make a good redirect. The cyanobacteria extract contains other compounds besides phenethylamine (like phycocyanin), so redirect may be confusing. Page should be deleted unless there is consensus for a partial merge or for keeping as an article (though it does not appear notable). Mdewman6 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxor Records

[edit]
Luxor Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After doing a preliminary WP:BEFORE search, I've come up with no lead on being able to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Graywalls (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nedd Brockmann

[edit]
Nedd Brockmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect to List of people who have run across Australia, which is what it was originally created as. Sourcing present and via BEFORE does not establish notability for Brockmann as a businessman or athlete so bringing it here for discussion Star Mississippi 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Seeking more participation in this discussion and an evaluation of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google his name and you will realise he needs an article.. 210.84.50.88 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

[edit]
Brussels International Festival of Eroticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque exonyms

[edit]
Basque exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Johnson (actor)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jeffrey Johnson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any SIGCOV, and while prolific, doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Unsourced BLP. GraziePrego (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harrison (author)

[edit]
Stephen Harrison (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regrettably (I think he's one of best WP-journalists around) I can't disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Media

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sphere Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a push to get this into the mainspace. Attempted to clean up the promotional tone just added by IP but it seems to be WP:TNT territory. Since last deletion discussion, the only thing I see is an announcement of a purchase which is a routine announcement (followed by multiple sources engaging in churnalism) and falls short of meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator was notified via script. Pinging other previous participants @Timtrent:, @DoubleGrazing:, @Robert McClenon:, @Vanderwaalforces:, @Jumpytoo:, @JMWt:. For the references used other than I mention in the nomination, there is a great source assessment in the first deletion discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything has changed from the previous AfD to make it pass WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course there is a push by the company and their people to get it into mainspace. That is why some members of the Wikipedia community are pushing back. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an improvement over the previous version, in that it no longer contains puffery. It now reads as if it was written by the corporate technical writer from the company's viewpoint. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Rammed full of "Sphere has announced" and doesn't even bother to hide the fact that it is an advert. Fails WP:GNG. Is WP:PROMOTION 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still keep, it would be quite weird, in my opinion, if a production company which made series for major broadcasters wasn't notable. Previous AfD has an alternative source assessment which I agreed with, and I think the case is even stronger now. JMWt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    comment It's hard to assess the prior alternative source assessment as the articles are not linked, but the three most promising sources from that assessment don't exactly pan out. Variety sources in the current article are about acquisition of Sienna, which is substantive and independent about Sienna but not very independent about Sphere. Same with Hollywood Reporter. Canadian Theater Review isn't linked in article and I couldn't find it on my own. What are you seeing that I'm not?
    Clicked through a bunch of sources, and they are either interviews or brief mentions, or deal announcements which I tend to think are generated from press releases. I can't find anything with my own searches (looked at Google Scholar, Google news, some targeted google web searches).
    I agree in principle a major company with real-world impact should have an article. But at this point all I have is WP:IAR and I'm not sure why we should go there for this article, which seems to be all based on corporate news and press releases. Oblivy (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't look at it like that. I think they are notable because they are a producer of television and this is shown by coverage in independent third party sources. For example 1 is not just PR puff or interview (and I've made my views known on notability and interviews before) it's a piece of reportage by a named writer. And this isn't the only piece available. If this page somehow isn't kept then we are applying a GNG standard that isn't applied elsewhere. Which in my view isn't fair. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree that the Variety interview is earned media. That's one.
    I'm not sure I understand your last sentence - yes, the NCORP notability standard is much higher and the way it's been applied to interviews is sometimes hard to defend (but the defenders of that application seem to have won that battle).
    Would like to see other views. I think you can see I'm not a hard no, but I find it really hard to get excited about an article that's all about deals. Oblivy (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josette Baisse

[edit]
Josette Baisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel like this article should be deleted because it's too insignificant of a person to have their own Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf Michael (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"