Dear reader/writer of this WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia. The present page was above the template_include_limit. As a result, the bottom of the page was not displayed correctly. At
Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded, we tried to fix the problem, in order to empty this category (see the
related talk page). The original page can be seen in the page history (although it will not display correctly). In any case, feel free to revert if you have a better solution to fix the page overflow problem.
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. 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|Asia|~~~~}} 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.
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 Asia. 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:
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.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:51, 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
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.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:32, 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
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.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:47, 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.
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"
[1] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
"Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"
[2] by Juha Janhunen
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
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
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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm leaning delete, but I think kwami is right that there can be articles about arguments used for dubious language families, and I think calling the article "original research" is overly critical. However, the WALS map is not clearly about an argument used for certain proposed families, but about the distribution of sounds in certain pronouns - whether or not these have been used as arguments for Nostratic/Altaic/Indo-Uralic or whatever - at least in my reading. I would like to see more sources that are specifically about the pattern, otherwise it seems to get undue weight by having an article. The topic could instead be covered under the name of "(Personal) pronouns in Nostratic/etc", which would make sense under a very different structure (so not sure a move would be useful, or?), and maybe even better to start it as a subsection in the relevant proposed family's article. This would probably better reflect the context that the pattern is discussed in, in the sources. //
Replayful (
talk |
contribs)
18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that would be recognizable. I think "M–T and N–M pronoun patterns" as suggested above would be best. Those are the two patterns that are notable globally. We can still have an 'other patterns' section.
— kwami (
talk)
07:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA
Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan
and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing
2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance.
Lunar Spectrum96 (
talk)
09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these.
Govvy (
talk)
10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep
let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.
Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.
Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia.
Lunar Spectrum96 (
talk)
19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons
WP:GNG and
WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
Parwiz ahmadi (
talk)
12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as
this one by the New York Sun.
Dan Wang (
talk)
22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The person does not meet WPGNG or Anybio; he was the head of some state-owned companies or held other similarly non-notable positions.
BoraVoro (
talk)
08:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject appears to be a bureaucrat in state bureaucracies of an authoritarian state. There is no independent coverage of the subject on which to build an article.
thena (
talk)
10:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Zero references to establish
notability. After searching, found other people of same name, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific person. PROD removed 27 June 2024; PROD reverted 27 October 2022; PROD on 27 October 2022; Created on 27 August 2014.
JoeNMLC (
talk)
14:59, 1 July 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, LizRead!Talk!15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The
Azerbajani article gives 1 reference: "Tamxil Ziyəddinoğlu, "Hafiz Baxış-80". Bütöv Azərbaycan qəzeti, №36(168), 17-23 oktyabr 2012-ci il." This appears to be an article in a reasonable news source. I can't find it but I think he may have significant coverage.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of
Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails
WP:N with no significant level of coverage.
Jaunpurzada (
talk)
00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject fails notability and the sources on the page are poor to unreliable
WP:HISTRS with many failing verification with no significant coverage on the subject.
RangersRus (
talk)
14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clearly passes Wikipedia's minimum requirement criteria
WP:GNG. also there are many offline sources are available, for more information please see
WP:OFFLINE. Some of ref are
1,
2,
3,
4. Thank you. 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Not opposed to the redirect mentioned by Broc; nor to Keep (if one considers his role in The Kung Fu significant too, for example) or that the number of his roles can make him meet WP:NACTOR (31 credits=prolific?).-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NACTOR. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Heng was not even part of the starring cast in any movies nor TV series, not even on Girl vs. Monster nor Kung Fu. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be
WP:TOOSOON. —
YoungForever(talk)16:48, 7 July 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.
Does not meet
WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.Broc (
talk)
20:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. NB in future please do not bundle like this!
GiantSnowman20:01, 3 July 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.
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.
Does not meet
WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.Broc (
talk)
20:54, 1 July 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.
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.
Does not meet
WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.Broc (
talk)
20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this can be fixed - there's specific coverage of him in Cambodian, though I did the search yesterday and forgot to comment here. It will take some work though, non-Latin script languages are always a bit harder.
SportingFlyerT·C15:48, 3 July 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.
This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's
Good Weekend magazine and in The Agehere. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."
The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."
The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."
The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."
The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."
HereInternet Archive is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
Its editor is Samantha Teague.
"Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
"All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
"Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
"Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
"All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
"We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
"Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
Non-notable 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)17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as
unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g.
[3]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete.
Sjakkalle(Check!)07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."
The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"
From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."
Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.).
"杨振宁获求是终身成就奖 系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from
the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via
Sina Corporation.
The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"
From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."
The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."
Keep: Cunard did a very thorough search of sources. However, I found the nominator's main concern is that many of the sources are about the award ceremonies and awardees, rather than the award itself. While the South China Morning Post and People's Daily sources provided by Cunard are indeed about the award itself, The Beijing News and China Daily sources seem to fall under what the nominator would consider as non-independent sources. Therefore, I found two additional sources from Guang Ming Daily[4] and Ta Kung Pao[5] which documented the founding of the award, and I believe these should be adequate to address the nominator's concerns. —Prince of Erebor（
The Book of Mazarbul）15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Strike my vote first. I do not believe those interviews are primary sources in the first place since it addresses the subject person's company and the trade industry as a whole, so I did not identify them as PS per
WP:IV. But I had no idea that the Forbes India interview is sponsored content, and I agree that paid advertorials should be considered non-independent. My rationale was mostly based on the two interviews, but with one deemed non-independent and one with disputed views, I no longer possess a strong rationale to go for keep. —Prince of Erebor（
The Book of Mazarbul）14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I conducted another round of searching but did not find any other usable sources. Thanks to S0091 for pointing out that the Forbes and Fortune sources are non-independent paid advertorials, which I had overlooked. A single GQ interview is not sufficient for passing GNG. Changing my !vote to Delete. —Prince of Erebor（
The Book of Mazarbul）13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: none of the sources contribute to
WP:GNG as they are either primary such as press releases or interviews, trivial coverage or not reliable such as the Huff Post which was written by a contributor rather than staff.
S0091 (
talk)
14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {
Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The coverage was beyond routine in that it was analyzed in the pattern of something else (the Buddhist-Muslim conflict in Burma), however it fails
WP:SUSTAINED so I feel like at most this should be merged somewhere. I can't think of where...
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No sourcing that I could find besides sales listings and a single sentence mention in an issue of
The Booklist from 2008, but there is a language barrier so my Japanese searches may have not been effective. Could probably be merged and mentioned somewhere if there aren't other sources.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see
WP:GNG,) not an important school in Malaysia, and no reliable and independent sources cited or significant coverage.
N niyaz (
talk)
10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines ; most of the secondary sources cited are paid materials by Asia Pacific University (see
WP:SPIP.)
N niyaz (
talk)
10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Since I cited most of the secondary sources in the article. I would like to ask the nominator for deletion
N niyaz, is it possible to list some of the secondary sources that you claimed are paid materials by Asia Pacific University?
KjjjKjjj (
talk)
11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay @
KjjjKjjj I made a little mistake there, what I meant was Multimedia University. Also the school receives no significant coverage and most of the sources are just mentions. Unfortunately what's best is to make it a redirect.
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.
Delete - cannot see any evidence of notability at the article. No significant achievements. No in-depth independent coverage. C67913:17, 7 July 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.
Keep: Populated & legally recognized places presumed to be notable; don't see any reason this should be not legally recognized given the significant number of people who (from the photo) appear to be living in it. Article is mostly original research but contains useful information. If you really want proof it exists
this discusses a wildfire happening there.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
17:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable actor, possible
mercenary work. Most of the sources are mere mentions/name-drops of her, being focused on other members of her family instead. Urdu!VoA is a prose-style interview with her based on the automated translation, two sources are about being given a non-exclusive reward. Draftification attempts led to a move-war; see
WP:AN/I#User:BeauSuzanne. —
Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Not where biographies of living persons are concerned. Literally everything in the article that could reasonably be challenged must be sourced, and the award is the only thing that can be sourced based on what I'm seeing. An "article" that just states she won an award without any further context isn't really much of a stub, let alone an article. —
Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: For the record - I draftified the BLP because it was in poor shape, filled with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF. However,
Mushy Yank reverted my draftification without addressing the WP:OR issues, which escalated into a
move war (not initiated by me though). This BLP appears to be a case of WP:UPE because it was created by an editor
BeauSuzanne, who has a notoriously bad history of creating BLPs on non-notable subjects using WP:FICTREF. Anyone arguing for keeping this based on WP:ANYBIO # 1 must understand that there is no consensus that ANYBIO #1 supersedes GNG.. Clearly, the subject fails to meet the requirements of GNG and WP:NBIO as well. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Stating that I had not tried to honestly address the issues mentioned in the tags then on the page (and judged that they could reasonably appear addressed; even if they were perhaps not completely addressed) is at best exaggerated (see my edit, edit summary, the tags themselves (different of those currently on the page), the state of the page then and page history) and stating that there was a move-war is clearly misleading (see
article TP, where this was explained. Thank you. I will not make any further comments here, the same way I did not reply any further on that page and stopped editing it, for various reasons, including lack of time. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. She is a well know a radio artist. The government of pakistan awarded her and she also worked in a few dramas which i added but you removed it.(
BeauSuzanne (
talk)
16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC))reply
BeauSuzanne, Your argument that she received an award (WP:ANYBIO# 1) has already been countered above and your claim that she also worked in a few dramas doesn't really justifies a standalone BLP and is not convincing either, especially if the roles were not major. And as you yourself mentioned, that she's a radio artist, which also makes it difficult for her to meet the NACTOR. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Aren't radio artist notable she has been workin since 1958 which is in the source too and has worked more than three decades.(
BeauSuzanne (
talk)
17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC))reply
Delete: wedding photos and discussions of her spouse are all I find... The award could suggest notability, but the sourcing isn't there.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Allan Nonymous the award is one of the highest national honors bestowed by Pakistan. In the year she received it, there were only 36 recipients and she was one of the two females. It may not be enough to establish notability but please do not call minor.
S0091 (
talk)
20:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The creator of this BLP
SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 |
14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SheriffIsInTown, Firstly,
this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per
WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet
WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option.
2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (
talk)
12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recreated in mainspace after draftification, so I'm bringing this to AfD. No evidence of notability, very few results pop up in an Internet search. Perhaps editors with knowledge of Pakistani sources can help dig deeper.
Broc (
talk)
11:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Pakistani films of 1991: it is listed there; sources exist for verification and the cast is notable. This kind of redirect can imv be said to be standard practice/working consensus for films that are judged not sufficiently notable for a standalone page but have received coverage for verification and/or have notable artists in the cast or crew (when the director has no page yet); it allows further development if sources are found later (ATD). -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)18:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe that this page shouldn’t be deleted because the film is notable and I provided reliable sources from the Pakistani Film Magazine which is an official website that shows every film made in Pakistani history. I would appreciate it if this page stays the way it is and not be deleted. Thank you😊
Saqib lollywood (
talk)
18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:SYNTH - Fails GNG. Those suggesting to keep this article must substantiate with evidence from RS that these listed "phenomena" are indeed are "Internet phenomena in Pakistan." Also delete per @
Arms & Hearts, who
stated heregiven the existence of
List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary.Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep meets
WP:NLIST. Direct and in-depth coverage in Dawn (
[23]), Hindustan Times (
[24]), Times of India (
[25]), NPR (
[26]), Proft by Pakistan Today (
[27]), Youlin (
[28]). Additional coverage in academic journals (
[29],
[30],
[31],
[32],
[33],
[34],
[35],
[36],
[37]). Saqib, we're here to
WP:BUILDWP, not to destroy. AFDs with lacking proper
WP:BEFORE are becoming common in your case. Combined with the fact that you rarely vote to keep (
[38]), it shows how ardent a deletionist you are and how much damage is being done with these bad nominations. I have question: how many times you have rescued a topic that was up for deletion but was kept due to your proper BEFORE. I don't think there are many you can show us. Please stop nominating these borderline notable topics or someone has to ask admins to stop this.
2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 (
talk)
12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello IP - the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the coverage you provided are primarily focus on some memes and the provided coverage doesn't even mention Internet phenomena in Pakistan so please just avoid WP:FAKE, as well WP:SYNTH, like i said before. Additionally, I can understand your
frustration with my AFDs, so if you
believe a t/ban is warranted, I encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum, not in AFDs. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or draftify IP points out several nice sources above, but none of them are used in this article. It could be reasonable to write about Pakistan's
internet culture and use of memes (if if's even distinct from anywhere else), but that is not this article. Here is just five specific incidents. Just because something was briefly trending on Twitter does not make it a "phenomenon" or notable. Surely there are many thousands of videos that have gone viral or resulted in a hashtag, but this not the place to compile anything that "generated trolling on social media" or resulted in people making memes. The global internet culture has changed so that many topics see brief fame, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize them like this.
Reywas92Talk01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 presented sources that deal with the topic as a set, so that the list meets the requirement for notability. If the sources, that can be added at any time, are judged to focus only on (a list of) memes and/or the name of the page is considered inaccurate, then rename
List of Internet memes in Pakistan. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Firstly, I like to repeat that the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the sources IP provided above primarily focus on some memes without mentioning the subject of the article which is Internet phenomena in Pakistan. So how can it be claimed that the list meets the requirement for notability when the coverage does not even discuss the subject? And suggesting it to rename to
List of Internet memes in Pakistan raises the question of whether such lists are generally permissible? Typically, WP does not host such lists, although
every country may have its own memes. This would be like having
List of Internet memes in the United States or
List of Internet memes in India. Pointless. Right? And sure If we were to pursue this, the list must meet WP:NLIST / WP:STANDALONE , which requires coverage directly about the list itself, not merely individual memes. This topic clearly fails WP:LISTCRITERIA so let's please avoid WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE etc. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll repeat myself too, then. I explained why I think this list does meet
WP:NLIST: there are reliable sources discussing the subject as a set. Renaming it is just an adjustment restricting the scope (memes being Internet phenomena). Permissible, yes, very much so, for the reason that it meets the guideline about lists. Feel free to create lists of Internet memes in other countries if you have the time and interest and you can find sources. It is certainly not pointless, no, since you're asking me. The rest of the guidelines you mention etc. is not exactly necessary if you read my !vote with attention but thank you for your time and effort. Should you consider replying until I agree with your view or for other reasons, I apologise in advance for not making any further comments. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mushy Yank, No, I don't expect you to agree with me. You've your opinion and I've mine, but I reserve the right to counter your arguments, if I see them not aligning with policy. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well.
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is
verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. signed, Aafi (talk)09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Isn't
this an evidence of SIGCOV. A twice award recipient of the third highest military honor is notable. What is it with this deletion? Is there anything am missing? Sources seems to be offline. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is seriously no problem. The subject clearly passes a subjective notability criteria and GNG/SIGCOV is really not a thing here. If we discard subjective notability here, I guess a huge bulk of articles would need to be wiped up and all ther subjective criteria's discarded. signed, Aafi (talk)18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Briefly mentioned in articles about the movie (source 7), but I don't find much of anything about this person otherwise.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Aafi, But we don't have a consensus that WP:ANYBIO # 1 override the GNG requirement. WP:ANYBIO also says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. Fwiw, there's an ongoing debate about this issue at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ANYBIO at AfD. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
11:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Saqib, thanks, this is something I was looking for. Notability is always presumed.
WP:GNG also says it, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." However, thanks for the link and I believe the outcome of this AfD should consider the result of this discussion that you have linked. I'd be glad to change my opinion given where that discussion on
WP:ANYBIO goes. signed, Aafi (talk)13:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sheesh, just redirect this junk to
Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents.
Reywas92Talk14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable company, no secondary sources. This article has no sources that suggest notability, but only references to the subject's own website/blog. If we compare the name of the account that created the article,
Cathalmoylan, with the name of one of the founders of the business, Cathal Moylan (mentioned in the article), it becomes obvious that there is a
WP:COI. Even so, the article is not written in a promotional way, so it can't be speedied per
G11. However, it's clearly not a notable business.
Bishonen |
tålk22:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: It seems like a small business and there aren't any independent sources to show it's widely known or important. Also, the references all seem to be from the business itself, which raises concerns about potential bias.
Waqar💬18:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd blank and redirect, but it seems an unlikely search term. I simply fail to see what pupose this article serves; there is already an article on
Cebu.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This was marked as {{
db-hoax}} by
Myrabert01. Not sure whether it is a hoax or not, but it is certainly unsourced and was until recently about a
different station of the same name. Expert attention needed to decide what should be done here. See also the talk page. —
Kusma (
talk)
15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete I see trouble ahead. The details in the infobox do not make sense to anyone who understands the history of
All TV or
ABS-CBN. Even if this wasn't a hoax, I'd have problems with sourcing and possible existence thereof. I am pinging one user whom I trust to have the final word:
WayKurat.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
17:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Revert, then delete or redirect to a list of ABS-CBN transmitters. Even de-hoaxing it does not provide significant coverage to work from.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
06:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, I also found important and notable places in Halang (in Google Maps), Like CityMall Calamba (I worked on CityMall articles and they have 10 sources max), I also found Calamba Institute and a Provincial Office.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't move an article as part of a closure but I can close this as a Redirect and then the Redirect can be moved. Is this acceptable? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:53, 7 July 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.
@
JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets
WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point
WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs)
14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is
Barangay 51, Caloocan (
list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000
barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces.
WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in
Manila is not a
WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in
Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are
WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if
WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no
WP:SIGCOV from an
WP:RS.
Howard the Duck (
talk)
07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be.
The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S.
census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.
@
JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs)
17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile.
Howard the Duck (
talk)
09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute.
SportingFlyerT·C15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG does not actually override WP:GEOLAND - WP:GEOLAND is one of the rare exceptions and simply requires verification that this is a populated place.
SportingFlyerT·C05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt I declined this at AfD some time ago as lacking depth of coverage. There are a bunch more sources in the current article than the abandoned
Draft:XDC Network, but they don't seem very independent or are just passing mentions.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
10:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be
Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America,
il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a
book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?
Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass
Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.
Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm.
Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)
I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:LASTING is likely satisfied as per the sentence, The tragedy was notable for prompting safety measures in Seoul to prevent future vehicle accidents, and for highlighting the prevalence of traffic accidents caused by senior citizens and about potential programs to promote voluntary withdrawal of their driver's licenses.[6] It was also notable for investigations into derogatory statements left at the makeshift memorial for the tragedy and on online communities, prompting arrests for defamation charges.[7] In addition, the article has 26 textual citations, some from international news sources, and the collision caused 9 deaths with the potential for up to 12.
69.118.230.235 (
talk)
21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep because of legislation per
WP:EFFECT.Comment I disagree with some of the defense of this article. I don't agree that the derogitory remarks or the investigations into them count as notability per
WP:EFFECT. Those are just things that happened, not impact on society/legislation.
What legislation? The article only mentions investigations and an emergency order, none of which is legislation. This occurred less than a week ago. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which passes legislation that quickly, except in extraordinary circumstances. This is just another news story that will be forgotten about by the time there's any lasting impact. That's the reason for all the Wikilawyering and other maneuvering I see going on, just like any number of other news stories that are (almost) immediately AFD'ed and defended based on the mere presence of X number of citations.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not all executive actions are created equal. You cannot seriously be comparing an executive action in the aftermath of WWII by one of the most important figures of the 20th century to this. These orders are also more fragile than robust legislation. It also doesn't help that Korea engages in action theater often after these kinds of incidents.
Delete In my opinion, this document is not described from a neutral point of view, because I think that quoting news that has brought about a community response on the Internet and writing down the Derogatory Remarks category hurts neutrality.
I think you meant to say "the NPOV issues should be fixed, and not contribute to article deletion". I still think the article leans towards draftify/delete, regardless of the POV expressed in the article.
211.43.120.242 (
talk)
00:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable award which effectively serves the purpose of rewarding people who promote tourism in Seoul. The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from
List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans. The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots.
Aydoh8 (
talk |
contribs)
11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.
Keep Needs searches in the Korean language. Try googling "인피니트헬스"; you get much more results.
[55][56][57][58][59][60] I am mindful of the fact that the page is tainted by a paid creator, but it doesn't read excessively complimentary to me on a quick glance.
211.43.120.242 (
talk)
11:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
[1] and [6] are press release, [2] is about the CEO, and I have reservation on [3] and [4] as routine stock coverage. [5] is good and I did not see it before: changing my vote.
CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (
talk)
07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: while the article is short and incomplete I do believe the subject itself doesn't violet the notability guidelines for companies as it is a a public company with some coverage, but it should be improved and expanded.
EncyclopediaEditorXIV (
talk)
14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable band. Article was moved from draft space and I originally returned it. After examining the article I noticed that it claim the band started 6 December 2023. However, the the only reference was published 2 February 2021. This was at least 17 months before auditions started. In addition the reference seemed to be about three young women and not twelve young men. The article provides no references for a band that has only released two singles and was created by a non-notable reality show,
789 SURVIVAL.
CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human),
Uqaqtuq (talk),
Huliva22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Their music have already been released. The band was split into 2 different subunits: BUS5 and BUS7. It should be easier to find sources from these 2 names. --
Lerdsuwa (
talk)
02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify. Should not linger in mainspace with
WP:V problems that are basic in nature: Who are Bus? Are they one or two groups? Who are in those two groups?
Geschichte (
talk)
21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Was not notable a year ago; all that's changed since then is running for re-election. Frankly, the list of military medals isn't notable, but it makes up a good third of the article. The rest is a biography.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It makes sense to have an article for Cao because he vastly overperformed against Wexton in ‘22 and he is now the nominee for Senate. Joe Kent of Washington, who is not a horribly notable figure has his own page and they both have somewhat similar political backgrounds.
Keep. The subject seems to meet
WP:GNG§
WP:SIGCOV guidelines through his major political party nomination in two national elections and the coverage of him in the interim with a decent amount of coverage in foreign media.
WP:POLITICIAN reads "being...an unelected candidate for political office...does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline".
WP:ROTM § Political candidates is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and even it does not preclude articles for non-incumbent candidates if GNG standards are met. —
AjaxSmack01:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While ROTM is not a policy or guideline, it gives the condition that The person was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons as it is. So, not just meeting GNG for the election coverage itself like you seem to imply.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
02:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. He is a US Senator candidate, covered in a lot of articles. Thus, saying that he is not well-known is a weak view. People may need to search for more details about him to have a better decision in the election or for other reasons. I think content about him as a politician will increase significantly in the near future. Given that he has some possibility to be a senator in the near future, deletion of his page at the moment is not a good choice.
Zenms (
talk)
05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:GNG. Fails on
WP:NPOL as he hasn't been elected. Creator can draftify and if he gets elected can update (removing articles he wrote used as sources) and reinstate it
Mztourist (
talk)
08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NPOL reads any subject "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". That's the argument here. Falling back on a rote interpretation of WP:NPOL makes life easy (and I opposed this article in
the previous AfD on that basis), but it is not a faithful interpretation of GNG which calls for "significant coverage". On the one hand, all 100 of
Virginia's state delegates have articles pro forma, but by and large fail GNG (e.g.
Barry Knight,
Alex Askew) and on the other hand we have a subject here who is a far more significant political figure, has been a serious major party candidate twice (with coverage of his sometimes unusual statements and questionable actions in the interim) and has been the sole subject of numerous articles in national publications. —
AjaxSmack15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep He has been very notable domestically, and I have seen a few sources internationally mentioning him as well. He made big headlines in 2022, and has been generating many large headlines from numerous large media corporations about his candidacy for US Senate.
1980RWR (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This should be redirected to
2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as he is not notable at this time based on our
understanding of GNG,
current political candidates, and
WP:POLOUTCOMES "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged ... into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as
2010 United States Senate election in Nevada." That said, I have come to the conclusion that it is rarely worth the effort to debate US Senatorial candidates who have won their major party's primary during the period between the primary and the general election. There are editors who suggest that just being a nominee is sufficient for an article, despite there being no policy or guideline asserting this view. So, at this point, I think it is better to use the editing process from keeping these articles from becoming repositories of campaign brochures (or a series of political statements or positions) and refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until the election. --
Enos733 (
talk)
15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm curious about your opinion on a couple of points. Firstly, though "candidate...are not viewed as having presumptive notability", do you think a candidate can be notable on
WP:SIGCOV merits on a case-by-case basis? Secondly, you say we should "refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until after the election", but I would argue that losing an election cannot remove notability; conversely if Hung Cao is going to be non-notable after losing, then he's not notable now either and the article should be deleted now per
WP:NOTNEWS. Should articles be permitted to exist only for a campaign period? (I'm asking this seriously and not trying to be argumentative.) —
AjaxSmack15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I do think that a candidate (who is not already notable) can pass WP:SIGCOV as a candidate, but in my mind this is a very high bar, usually with substantial international coverage (see
Christine O'Donnell), but could be demonstrated in other ways, such as academic writings, notable documentaries, or similar coverage after the campaign is completed. I think that many political candidates are
low profile individuals and the coverage they receive is for their participation in
WP:BIO1E one event. As to the second question, my
position is that it grows increasingly difficult to hold a AFD (in the US) the closer we get to election day, especially with US Senate candidates who are nominated by either the Republican or Democratic parties. Because notability is not temporary, we should be careful with our assessment of notability, especially of political candidates who may not pass a
ten-year test of significance and may quickly fade back to obscurity. All of this is why I think the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues. -
Enos733 (
talk)
16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would also say that it is possible that a candidate that has a weak claim to pass GNG prior to the campaign could meet our notability standards with coverage of the campaign. But in this scenario, we would be looking for at least one substantive source prior to the candidate filing for office. -
Enos733 (
talk)
16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I like your idea that "the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues". Many of those "articles" largely resemble machine-generated lists of figures. I agree that many losing candidates in single elections are like
WP:BIO1E cases, but in this case you have a major-party candidate performing well in two different elections. There comes a point where something can render a candidate notable during or between campaigns, but I'm not quite sure where the line is. (In an extreme case, if a candidate shot an irate debate watcher during a campaign, it would make the candidate notable even if the shooting without that political context wasn't notable.) What bothers me is the lack of judgement that results in four-sentence (non-)articles for non-notable incumbents like
this and
this while suppressing articles on non-incumbents who have received widespread, sustained news coverage. I support general rules to control the number of articles, but there should be leeway for exceptions that rests on the spirit and not just the letter of these rules. —
AjaxSmack16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Those incumbents are notable, though, though Will Davis is very hard to search for. They just have underdeveloped articles, and those articles may not ever be a featured article, but they don't fail GNG. Senate candidates face a massive recentism and a "you can't make yourself notable" problem, and at some point, we do keep failed perennial candidates.
SportingFlyerT·C16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Extensive reliable sources. It's been the practice of Wikipedia to have articles for first-time US Senate candidates with a lot of reliable sources ever since 2020 when the AfD for
Theresa Greenfield was overturned. -
LtNOWIS (
talk)
18:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect I really disagree with the belief that U.S. Senate nominees in competitive states should be considered automatically notable. They seem notable at the time, but if/when they lose, it becomes evident that they are not. I mean really, is anyone searching for
Theresa Greenfield anymore? I don't think Hung Cao is notable enough outside of this election.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the current election as a viable ATD or delete - being an unelected candidate anywhere does not guarantee notability, and keeping a page up in case an election is won violates our policy that once you're notable, you're always notable, as some !keep articles have mentioned. I also disagree there's any sort of an exception for American senate candidates as they can be adequately covered on the page for the election.
SportingFlyerT·C16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the
notability and
verifiability criteria.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
jomhornews.com,
m.kun.uz,
trt.net.tr, and
sport.kg.
Lunar Spectrum96 (
talk)
10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
