This is a self-promoting vanity page for a marginal figure, who is obviously continually editing it. There is a very long history of edit wars on the article, including their attempts to prevent coverage of their legal issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)
This nomination for deletion is part of ongoing vandalism of this page, which resulted it being locked down for a year. The nomination comes from one particular editor whose history shows he has targeted this particular page to delete large swaths of sourced content. His edit history also shows that he has targeted this page multiple times, contributing nothing but deleting large sections due to personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladonna2024 (talk • contribs)
The account that keeps sabotaging this page (TrashPandaMan) and deleting huge segments without adding anything to it, is now aggressively vandalizing the page and repeatedly nominating it for deletion. His history of edits shows he has targeted two specific pages, this one and another page, and repeatedly vandalizing and nominating them for deletion, citing only his personal opinion that it should be deleted. Belladonna2024 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly doubt "Indian political parties named Socialist Party" is a notable list topic per WP:NLIST. I propose turning this article into a disambiguation page. Sourced claims that are present here should be moved to applicable articles. Janhrach (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, candidacy doesn't count towards NPOL, by the way, they have to be elected to the office. For GNG, the sources used are routine coverages of the racism incident, etc. No WP:SIGCOV can be identified. One of the BBC source even does not have a byline, while you might thing it's almighty BBC, but sorry, we can not rely on a news piece that lacks a byline, whether from an international news org or a local one. A WP:BEFORE was done and the nature of the sources found there does not help, they either routine coverages or run of the mill. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIRS requires that sources establishing notability need to be "completely independent of the article subject" and reliable. I could only find pro-Venezuelan-government sources about this organization. I find it dubious whether these sources establish notability, therefore I am nominating this for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There does seem to be some decent coverage in books. I'll have a more thorough look later. I'm unsure how and on what basis you can characterise particular media sources as "pro-Venezuelan-government". What media sources which are "anti-Venezuelan-government" and are they acceptable to establish notability? AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Google Books results, it seems most are either citations of VSC, or trivial mentions. That was my first glance on the search results, but I do not deny there may be books that provide substantial coverage.
By "pro-Venezuelan-government", I meant, for example, Venezuelanalysis and the Liberation News of Party for Socialism and Liberation or other party-affiliated sites. I do not mean that all "pro-Venezuelan-government" do not establish notability – I expressed myself poorly. I doubt that specific sources establish notability because of their partisanness, with SIRS mandating absolute independence from the subject. I am no expert on notability, I could be mistaken. Janhrach (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this site, and have used it for a while, but it unfortunately fails WP:GNG, all sources are self-published. The archived Yahoo source is merely a list of similar trivia websites. Sekundenlang (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it’s part of an entire series of articles for the different Japanese football leagues which not only tracks the competitions year by year, but the teams too. Cutting out a single article in the series seems like it would break up the series for no good reason, when the information itself is super clearly presented, and threaded, in a way I haven’t been able to find anywhere else online.
In my opinion deleting it would take away something useful. For that reason, I have the page a solid edit tonight. I’ve still got to go ahead and add match report links to each individual game, but I think I at least covered the basics.
This is such a useful resource that I’m going to make it a mission to pick through all the rest of the articles in the series one by one, and expand / source each of those as well. So it would be really nice if you didn’t delete this one article as I’m doing that…
Keep or Draftify - Significant sources have been added and an editor has expressed interest in expanding further. At minimum, move to draft to give editor time to continue to improve. Chris1834Talk20:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lakana presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe) with a specific type of rig (the "downwind" mastless rig that is supported between two sprits). This specific type of craft does exist – it is shown in the photo illustrating the article. However, in Malagasy, as far as I can determine, the word "Lakana" is any type of canoe, with or without outriggers, with or without a sailing rig, and certainly not confined to just one type of sailing rig. This is clear from the reference in the article Hornell, James (1920). "67. The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa". Man. 20: 134–139. doi:10.2307/2839454. Retrieved 5 September 2024. which has a translation provided by a colonial administrator confirming that "lakana" is not a specific type of canoe, but a canoe (or boat) in general. Hornell is still seen as a useful authority on the ethnography of sailing craft in the areas in which he worked. If the word applied to a particular hull and rig combination, he would have picked up on this.
I have asked for help on the Wikiproject Madagascar[1] with no result. Therefore, I think we have to conclude that these concerns about the article are correct. If "lakana" is a much broader term than the article suggests, if we do not the name of the type of craft that the article describes (I can find no source that makes this clear), then the only option is to delete the article as unsupported by sources.
In passing, it is worth saying that I have come to the conclusion that though the subject of traditional sailing craft in Madagascar would make a very interesting (to me) article on Wikipedia, there simply are not sufficient sources to do the subject justice. This is after some considerable searching. (It would be great to be proved wrong in this.) ThoughtIdRetiredTIR13:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scope. To my read, the article doesn't state (at least not directly as interpreted by the nominator) that the article "presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe [of Madagascar]) with a specific type of rig". Rather it states (as would appear to be supported by Hornell (1920; p.138) and Richardson (1887; p.345)) that the Lakana is (yes) a specific type of watercraft. Being an outrigger canoe. That is "dug out". Rather than "built". IE: A "specific type of watercraft (a dugout outrigger canoe [of Madagascar])". Which is supported by Richardson in particular. Yes, the article mentions different types of rigging. But I don't read it as stating that the rigging type is part of the definition/classification. If that is unclear, I would suggest that we clarify or change the text. Rather than delete the article.
Sources. To my mind, there are sufficient sources (including the two above) to support some text about the subject. Being a type of dugout outrigger traditionally used in Madagascar. Even if just as a sub-set / sub-section of the Pirogue article. Which appears to cover the "generic" class of small dugout canoe. Globally. With a redirect left behind. To a subsection on the Madagascan type.
Suggested action. If the issues with the title are scope (including clarity of the text) or sources (reflecting them), I'm not sure that outright deletion is the right way to go. Deletion isn't cleanup. At the very least, a merge/redirect seems like the way to go. To Pirogue. Leaving out any "questionable" or potentially confusing text.
Translation: The key issue is whether Lakana is a term for "outrigger canoes which are based on a dugout hull" or if it applies to "any dugout canoe". The two sources discussed above seem to give the definition of an unqualified "dugout canoe". At present the article is solely about the outrigger version. To assist in decision-making on the meaning, see this video[2] with the caption "Miandry ny lakana miampita" which google translates as "The boat is waiting to cross". We can see there is no outrigger. (Whilst OR is not allowed for article content, there is no prohibition on using it to help understand a subject.) The boat in the video is very different from the seagoing outrigger canoes.
What makes this more difficult is the knowledge that the Vezo make use of outrigger canoes with a distinctive common spritsail rig (as defined by Edwin Doran [3], pg 40, fig 21, drawing B) that is not described, in Madagascar, by Hornell or anyone else. (Hornell describes this rig in the neighbouring Comoro Islands[4]) A Vezo boat is the one illustrating the Pirogue article – but there is no RS that identifies the rig type. And, of course, Commons has no obligation for its descriptions of pictures to be supported by an RS. This might contribute to the impetus for deletion in this editor's mind (as proposer), as there is a very common class of Madagascan dugout outrigger canoe that is totally undescribed in RSs, so making the subject incomplete. (See youtube[5] for these Vezo craft under sail, which is something that most believe Hornell never saw). All I have to back this thought up is some private correspondence with a researcher on Austronesian rigs – so essentially WP:OR.
If I understand User:Guliolopez correctly, their suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue. That would fit with the intent behind the proposal: that we do not really have enough sourced material for an article on the Lakana on its own. Have I got this correct? ThoughtIdRetiredTIR21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Hi ThoughtIdRetired. RE: "suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue". Effectively, yes, I think that's probably the most appropriate outcome. Retain the title. As a redirect. And summarise and merge the content/text (about the Lakana being a form of Pirogue/dugout traditionally associated with Madagascar) into the Pirogue article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Note: prior to the AfD nomination, I had suggested to the nominator that they put this up for deletion.) My take on the current sources etc. is that none of them indicate that the lakana is anything other than the Malagasy for a canoe. My interpretation of each source etc. below:
"The lateen rig allows a lakana to sail closer to the wind, so giving some windward performance.[1]”
My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
"The boat is often referred to by the general French term "pirogue", which can include boats with no outriggers.[2]"
My interpretation: “general French term” suggests there's nothing special about the lakana.
“The technology was adapted in neighboring East Africa, like the Tanzanian ngalawa and the Fulani laana.[3][4]”
My interpretation: Can't access these sources, but the Wikipedia wording suggests that there are similar craft elsewhere - i.e. there's nothing peculiar to Madagascar about these.
“some locals prefer the Hazomalany wood (Hazomalania voyronii of the family of Hernandiaceae).[5]”
My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
Hornell, James (September 1920). “The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa”
My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
Richardson, J (December 1887). “The Affinities Of Malagasy With The Melanesian Languages”
My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
“An Austronesian square-sail is more common (e.g. in Ambaro Bay).[a]”
My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft-deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎14:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of an academic, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPROF. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show proper sourcing establishing that they surpass certain specific notability criteria -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published website and his own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer and his own writing metasourcing its own existence, rather than any third-party validation of his significance in sources independent of himself. There are further WP:COPYRIGHT issues here, as every book in his "selected works" isn't just "title + ISBN", but contains an extended advertorial spiel copied and pasted verbatim from its promotional page on the website of its own publisher. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to take this opportunity to bring up WP:NPPHOUR, as this was nominated for deletion 22 minutes after being converted from a redirect to an article. Also noting that the redirect's creator was notified, not the person who converted it to an article (pinging Willthacheerleader18). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There could possibly be an article on the library, with a paragraph on who it was named after, but Ms. Raney simply does not have enough accomplishments or reliable historical coverage to justify her own article. Meanwhile, the merge suggestion above is valid but I think it would be awkward because none of the other libraries in the county have any precise background info at the target article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is plenty of newspaper coverage of the "Olivia Raney Library". I added a reference from 1899 with extensive coverage in the The News & Observer of its opening. Perhaps the page should be renamed Olivia Raney Library.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnev66 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I tend to agree that this article fails WP:BIO but I do think the library itself is notable. In addition, most of the content in this article concerns the library rather than the woman. Perhaps the article could be draftified and rewritten as the Olivia Raney Library. Jtwhetten (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. None of the links in the article help establish notability. toweli (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subjective opinion coming from a lack of awareness of Canada's television entertainment scene. Sebastian Cluer is one of the most well known and in-demand directors in his country, having directed, produced and developed many notable shows that have had massive success both in his home country and abroad. Lots of them are on airlines, including Still Standing, Bollywed, Property Brothers...and the list goes on. These along with receiving many nominations and wins, particularly with The Canadian Screen Awards, which are the country's equivalent to the Oscars and Golden Globes combined.
Sebastian was also instrumental in the success of the hugely popular and successful show Kenny vs. Spenny and has been appearing in commentaries alongside Kenny Hotz as of late.
Keep. Article does need improvement, but there are far too many Gemini Award and Canadian Screen Award nominations and victories listed here to deem him "non-notable" at all. That's top-level national awards, equivalent to Emmys and Oscars, which is a notability lock even if the sourcing still needs improvement, and the sourcing for that kind of stuff most certainly can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is notable" and "delete" cannot coexist. Gemini Awards and Canadian Screen Awards are an inherent notability lock, meaning that every person with those awards on their mantle must be allowed to have a Wikipedia article. I'll grant that not everybody named in our Genie, Gemini and CSA articles already has an article yet, but everybody named in any of them must be allowed to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be no exceptions to that: it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have). Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nominations suggest notability, but there just isn't enough coverage about him. I had to dig to even bring this up [6]. An interview that doesn't quite help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been deleted and restored unilaterally by other editors due to debate over notability. While I believe the label is notable, I have not been able to find sourcing to support this assertion. Brining here to gain consensus on deletion or retention. glman (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her acting roles are small or in movies that aren't notable themselves and she hasn't established herself as a notable artist. While there is considerable media attention, much of it feels sensationalistic. I might be overlooking something since I don’t speak Romanian but her notability shouldn't simply stem from her father being a famous footballer (WP:INVALIDBIO) Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She seems to have notability on her own as an actress, though is hard for me to evaluate the notability of the films she acted in.Anonimu (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and is only sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources, without any secondary sourcing whatsoever. What's left is original research. It's impossible to even WP:ATD because there is nothing to merge at all, making it surprising how it lasted for so long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet notable per WP:NFILM, references cited confirm that principal photography hasn't begun yet, so the film may never see the light of day. All I could find online in English and Hindi (कर्माण्य) was WP:NEWSORGINDIA announcements about a teaser (currently CGI and a single actor) and a poster. Prodded once, moved to draft, declined there for notability. Wikishovel (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, just giving the reason why I created the page in the first place so users voting have the full picture. There are numerous chapter lists of fraternities and societies and I see this as similar to that. And I also don't want information I transfered from that page and expanded to be lost so this should be merged back to the main article if not kept as a seperate article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A small office supply company. All the references about it are press release wire stuff and ultra-low-value business churnalism. I can't find any significant coverage of it in any reliable source. I don't think this company passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG at all. A PROD on this basis was removed in 2013. There isn't a DE.wikipedia article about it; I don't think there ever has been. Note that there are a couple of other German companies with Mollenkopf in their name, but they're unrelated companies in different markets. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk09:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new version of the article does have more references, however there is still not significant coverage of the company. The Bloomberg article is the most persuasive, however a company closing one significant deal does not clear the WP:NCORP bar. The remaining mentions are all trivial. Brandon (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
The sources almost exclusively only provide trivial coverage of the company, I've added a source assessment table to demonstrate this. For example, the Fast Company article is a textbook example of WP:ORGTRIV: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists." Brandon (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as article's AfC reviewer. I am withdrawing my decision, and keeping this open to others' input. While I originally thought this might have been a pretty good article, I understand the other viewpoints. I give partial support to remove this article per WP:ORGTRIV, which I think is a viable reason. OnlyNanotalk12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company is covered in tons of sources and even several pages of books if you search on Google. The venture beat articles look like funding notices but the articles are quite in depth and I think Bloomberg along with plenty of sources online make this a very notable company. SunnyScion (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another dime-a-dozen TV weatherman article, with hardly any content since its 2008 creation that fails to establish why subject is notable. Sources before and after death are primary, with no viable third-party coverage. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added several citations to the stub-article, and some content. There are dozens more articles at OAsport (it) over several years. I think she medalled 2nd in a 2020 championship [7], and another. On quick look, it seems she was the highest ranking rider for the Italy eventing team at Paris 2024, and you don't get to the Olympics unless you already have a good competition record. I'll take a closer look later when I have more time. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dealing with Italian-only articles has been difficult, but I was able to find out some more information which I added to the article. From what I was able to find and understand, I would say that Bertoli likely meets notability standards regardless of my amateur attempts at rummaging through Italian articles. Still probably rated as a stub-level article, it is much improved over the version that was AfD'd. [8] ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, please review changes to the article since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article creator- I'm not strongly opposed to a merge but I created a separate article because the level of sustained media coverage over time is indicative of independent notability, e.g. this Sky News segment from two days ago in which she was the primary focus- most media focus is very much primarily focused on Jennie, rather than primarily focused on Steve Darling and discussing her only as an aside. Chessrat(talk, contributions)17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This doesn't feel like the subject of a separate page, and it's unlikely to be expandable either without resorting to puffery. --gilgongo (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"She is not the first guide dog to serve in Westminster, as House of Lords members Baron Blunkett and Baron Holmes of Richmond also use guide dogs in the chamber.[4]"
Delete - Agreed with the above that there is nothing to show that she has any notability of her own, independent of her owner, and as all of the main points are covered already in Steve Darling's article, there is no need for a merge. I have no objections to having it Redirect to Steve Darling as well, if others think that would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Without more support for Keep, the options here are Deletion or Merger. Let's give this discussion a few more days. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Lots of information here, but trying to verify any of it turns up crickets. Article was written by a 1-edit SPA apparently to promote a 2016 tour, and has remained essentialy unchanged ever since—except for adding even more promotional material, this time in support of a new venture involving the band's front men. StonyBrookbabble12:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted in May, recreated and speedy deletion refused on basis of "new" sourcing. However, the sourcing in the article does not indicate anything of substance about the next election. The Hindu article simply notes a quote from one politican saying they should win the 2027 election. Sangai Express has nothing. North East Today quotes a politican indicating they will field candidates in 2027. Simple evidence that an election will occur in future is not enough to satisfy notability criteria. At this point, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It’s a future event which has no set date, but which is possibly years away, with no absolutely set candidates, and nothing but guesswork in sources.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article fails WP:NBOOK. Aside from the one source listed in the article, a detailed search shows no other coverage of this book. If that one source wasn't listed, it would be hard to prove this book even exists. SJD Willoughby (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a blanket campaign level medal, but still well below the ANYBIO line which is generally the highest military honor awarded by the subject's nation. Additionally, it appears he was not actually awarded the Bronze Star Medal but rather had bronze service stars on his campaign medal which denote how many specific operations or campaigns participated in within the overall Pacific campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn’t play a notable role in either event, though. And it is still an event and the aftermath of the event. All we have is quick (1-2 paragraph) snippets in local newspapers (ie: "local man re-enlists") except for his mistakenly being reported dead for six days (which still garnered only local coverage). This was incredibly common at the time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been updating the article, including more information I've found at Newspapers.com. There's no question the subject passes WP:GNG, but it is my observation that some may not agree of the reason why he was written about, and not that this isn't a notable topic according to WP:NEXIST.
Storer was not the only one who was considered lost in the attack and later found alive. But it should be noted that his family and home state of Oregon was not notified he survived for weeks, only after they had a funeral service involving Portland's Mayor. The ordeal of Storer initially being lost during a heavily covered historic event is what likely triggered the WP:SIGCOV from media once it turned out he had survived. In addition, he has a first hand account and unique perspective of his own experience, and his involvement with the salvage afterwards.
As for WP:BIO1E, this is a unique case and I agree with @Hawkeye7 that Attack on Pearl Harbor is a long article to consider a redirect. The subject meets WP:NBASIC, though a shorter article covering Storer and others in similar circumstances would be suitable too. WP:PSEUDO applies here and there is coverage on the subject unrelated to the attack: to their expertise as a diver searching for people that were believed to have drowned. 123 –Filmforme (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather routine military career (that is rather briefly described here) and after the war doesn't seem to be much more notable. Reported as passing away Pearl Harbour, then surviving is more of a trivia item than a notable item for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A lot of additional sourcing was added since this article's nomination. I'd appreciate editors reviewing the article now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, a lot of content was added to this article after its nomination. Could editors review the additions? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A beauty pageant that fails WP:NEVENT. All sourcing is from either the pageant organizer or from bellezavenezolana.net. My analysis that this is a self published source has found at least one other editor in concurrence at RSN. Best to WP:TNT and start over if any good sources exist; my Spanish skills are nil and I haven't been able to find them. The article used to have more sources but they were invariably blogs and other SPS material. Here is a link to the prior revision before they were removed. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because of basically the same sourcing issue (save for two citations attesting that one of the contestants is gay):
Keep and wait it's likely that the consequences of Fujimori's death will be notable; he will be getting a state funeral per El País and there will be more to come. If by the end of the seven days there's nothing notable that's happened, then I'll change my vote. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The man has just died, there's little point in nominating the article now, how big the event will be is WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, the article passes WP:GNG and the funeral itself and its aftermath are yet to happen. I would like to point out that this isn’t just any state funeral; this was one of if not the most influential figure in Peruvian politics and across Latin America. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The guy may be influential, but the circumstances of death doesn't really ring much. If it were an extraordinary COD it may have passed GNG. As for the funeral it is WP:CRYSTAL. Borgenland (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keepwithout prejudice to re-nominating later or userfying if it turns out there's not much to say. In my experience, these notnews/crystal deletions are typically pointless -- the news keeps rolling in, and the article gets edited, until it's clear whether it's notable. The deletion rationale seems simple at the front end, but trying to discuss notability as new articles get added daily is like trying to sweep back the tides ("relisting, anyone care to comment on the new sources identified above?")merge to Alberto Fujimori. Very little of note was reported around his funeral; it appears no attendance or accolades from world leaders; nothing significant surrounding the event itself. Oblivy (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Main article can easily cover this. "Death of [Person]" articles do not need to exist separately from biographical articles that the person already had — they're created only where the death itself is a notable event but the person was not independently notable enough to get a conventional biographical article at all, meaning that they exist instead of a biographical article about the dead person, not as a supplement to a biographical article about the dead person. The deaths of already-notable people with biographical articles are covered in the biographical article, not in separate death-of spinoffs. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although there's WP:SIGCOV, Fujimori already has an article. There's no need for a second one detailing his death - all new information can be added to the main article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete Yet another absurd rush to create separate and redundant pages. Add content to Alberto Fujimori#Illness and death, then propose a split if there's sufficient content. The main article also has a whole Legacy section that would cover how people react to his death. If you think the main article is too long, move other content to the several existing subarticles rather than jumping to make another. Reywas92Talk17:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable political figures who already had biographical articles do not get their deaths spun off to separate "death of notable figure" articles — "Death of X" articles exist only for people who were not already notable in life so that the death itself is their entire basis for notability, and people who were already notable in life have their deaths covered in the biographical article rather than in a separate content fork. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be opinion or a statement of policy/guidelines/consensus? There many articles, for example Death and state funeral of Ruhollah Khomeini, Death of Li Keqiang, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II and so on, for people who were extremely notable in life. I'm not arguing for WP:OTHER, but I genuinely wonder if what you are saying is a policy, guideline, or even a consensus in the community.N.B. [[Category:Deaths and funerals of politicians]] appears to support my point above about apparent lack of consensus for the position that these articles are not for people who were famous in life.Oblivy (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete - Death by old age is not unusual, its not like an assassination or a suicide. Reactions to his death are better included at his own article to boost the Legacy section to tell us what impact he had - these reactions are not to his death but to him as a person (whether positive or negative). While there will be a state funeral, it does not seem like the type of long-term ceremonies that were held for people like Queen Elizabeth II (like at Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II). So most of this content is either already in the bio article or can be easily merged, and a separate article is unnecessary. --Masem (t) 12:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a separate article for the death of a state leader feels unnecessary. Unless more specific information is released that deems this article to be noteworthy, the information presented within this article would fit best with the original Alberto Fujimori article.--Ch3sp1n13 (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Article does seem relevant, however the fact that it died by old age it’s not notable and the funeral and aftermath can be easily merged in the main article. Protoeus (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Delete The manner of his death was not newsworthy in itself, the funeral will be covered, but IMHO doesn’t need its own page when it can be used to cap off the main page about him instead.
Keep : I think this a Wikipedia-worthy article. The death of a president, in this case an authoritarian leader who had a lot of controversies while he ruled seems like a notable topic to me. Similarly, the future events as regards his funeral is also something to look out for given his legacies. Instead of a deletion nomination, I’ll suggest the article is kept and developed as more eventful information unfolds.additional comment the funeral held already but I’ll still retain my ‘keep-vote’.
Everyone's making crap up again. There is no guideline that says state funerals are entitled to standalone articles. The content about the president's death can be covered in the president's own article. Reywas92Talk20:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. While we have had great participation here, almost every editor is focusing on the wrong question, whether or not you, as a person, think this event "deserves" an article. That factor is not important here. We assess discussions based on policies that are relevant and just as importantly, what reliable sources support. This article has been expanded since its nomination but I see no editors providing a review of the sources. This is what is needed to determine its notability, not opinions on whether or not this is an important event. Also, please do not move this article during this AFD discussion, or closure tools, XFDcloser can't decipher what to do when the page title of the article is different from the one at the top of this discussion page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Profile is sufficing the WP:BLP and WP:Notability. As per the WRS, here's the link providing his mentions on multiple government official websites as well as on Parliament of New South Wales' official website. Article can be made concise rejecting the poorly sourced information. Here are the links below I have found during research validating his notability.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get an assessment on this huge list of links so we know whether or not they are reliable. Tamaraharon, it would be helpful if you made this live, active links. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had looked at this article when it was first listed, and found many of the sources identified by @Tamaraharon so this was quick work. Aside from the primary sources, these are mostly just Diamond being quoted in an article which I don't think qualifies for notability. I see one source that qualifies for notability in the whole pile -- the Sydney Morning Herald article, #11 below -- which can be seen as significant and independent coverage from a major news outlet. The Guardian article #16 has a bit of editorial independence but it's really short - basically quoting him and then quoting someone reacting to him.
Fail to see how this is notable. Whole article is probably WP:SYNTH. Creator of this article conveniently added no pages for the citations, and when I looked into one of two of them (can't access the other, though it is likely the same case), I found no mention about this event [26]. I'm not surprised, since they also misused citations at Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)[27][28]HistoryofIran (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is primary research self-published in advertising blogs (WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLOGS). However, a couple of independent, non-scientific publications (The Atlantic, Washington Post; see refs 14 and 16 in article) picked it up and published their own short articles mentioning it, so I guess that notability is somewhat murky. Antispasm (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe the above that this is all self-published content. I can't find any reliable source that takes this seriously. No employer is going to allow a 17 minute break after every 52 minutes. — Maile (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the sources are really only so so but they used a lot of academic articles in an attempt to make it appear legit. Also this is a first for me but there's a fake citation! Rosenbaum & Heidary 2014 is not a real article, if you follow the DOI it takes you to Vachon, Lynam, and Johnson 2014. If you Google the title of the article it only returns the 52/17 page. Dr vulpes(Talk)06:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being a prolific writer of op-eds and magazine articles, Fontaine is not himself the subject of any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. (The closest example is a press release-based WP:ROUTINEarticle about his appointment as president of CNAS.) As a result, there's no pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. No other SNGs appear to apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An incredibly minor fictional character that, from what I can tell, only appeared in one, single issue of a comic. The one non-primary source being used in the article simply summarizes the plot of that single appearance. Searches turned up absolutely nothing else, not even brief mentions, on the character in reliable sources. Even fan wikis like the Marvel Database don't have an entry on the character. The character is as completely non-notable as a fictional character can possibly be, and is a complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters due to lack of notability. The new article has her listed but she is one of the few characters without a description, which this merge can solve
Comment - I touched upon this in another similar AFD earlier today, but this particular case is a even bigger example of why a Merge to that article is improper. A throwaway adversary that appeared in one issue of a comic is not a "supporting character" of Iron Fist and Luke Cage. Listing the character on that page as if they were is outright misleading. Rorshacma (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of where it is, a completely inconsequential character that made one single-issue appearance is too non-notable to be merged or mentioned anywhere. The very act of covering the character on Wikipedia in any capacity would create more notability for the character than actually exists. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different objection from "listing him under supporting characters is misleading". The fact that the character has received its own entry in the specialized Encyclopediaof Super-Villains (although that one differs somewhat in nature to our encyclopedia here) in my view gives him enough notability, obviously not for a stand-alone article, but for a two-sentence summary in a list. And that view is not based on personal evaluation of the primary material. It's also one common way lists work. And I don't see a benefit in not having this condensed information. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Delete and Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPRODUCT. Seems only notable within the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, and doesn't appear to warrant a standalone article. Article did not exist prior to the explosions, nor seemingly any reliable sources covering it, failing the "sustained coverage" requirement of NPRODUCT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Copying here what I wrote when I WP:PRODded this article yesterday:
This particular model of pager seems to be notable only in the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions. I can find no mention of "Gold Apollo AR-924," "Gold Apollo AR924" or "Gold Apollo AR" outside of news sources reporting the Israeli bombings. "Gold Apollo pager" returns only results for these news articles, the company's website, patent documents, and similar. The sources currently cited at the article fail the criteria for addressing the article topic "directly," as in the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG.
While the particular model of pager is likely to receive a good amount of (temporary) media scrutiny from a few outlets, this will likely be only in the context of the above-mentioned bombings. Although WP:SUSTAINED does not apply to non-BLP articles, WP:NPRODUCT does, and although secondary sources refer to this particular device, there seems to be no claim to notability outside of this single event, for which we already have an article. Thus, I believe this article fails to establish notability for the topic, and our status as not an indiscriminate collection of information is applicable. Evan(talk|contribs)00:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No other model of pager produced by the company exists on Wikipedia, information related to this product should be at most made a small section on the manufacturer's page. Beyond recent events, it is otherwise completely irrelevant to anything other than the company. JohnWarosa (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a weapon used in an attack. With up to 4000 victims, the event can have multiple articles. Possibly move to BAC Consulting. The technical details of the pager are not important, but the supply chain is. Note, that other weapons (talkie-talkies) were also used in the attack. The key question the article needs to answer is who made the pagers and who is responsible for their safety, Gold Apollo or BAC Consulting. Protecting Gold Apollo from bad publicity is not a reason for deleting the article. If they go bankrupt because of this, they fully deserve it. They had a responsibility to protect their trade mark.
P.S. - Wikipedia has an article on Stuxnet, but no article on the attack itself or the damage it caused. The Stuxnet article focuses on the weapon and on how it was delivered. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very flawed. The weapon was the explosives. Stuxnet was specific malware that exploited four zero day Windows vulnerabilities, and the article is about the engineered malware, and not about the model of USB drive it initially infected. But also that argument is off the point. The pager product is only notable if there are reliable independent secondary sources that significantly discuss the pager (not the attack, but the actual pager). Do we have any such sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many thousands of these devices exploded the other day, injuring, maiming or killing nearly 3000 people. This device is now by far the most notable pager/beeper ever made. This device is at the very center of one of the most dramatic and historic espionage and irregular warfare operations in human history that is certain to be studied and analyzed for many years to come. Already, numerous reliable sources worldwide are discussing this device in great detail, and it boggles my mind that some editors think that this article should be summarily removed. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw in this argument is that the exact make and model of pager that was manipulated does not provide justification for an article. Similarly, we have Bulgarian umbrella that details how umbrellas have been rebuilt into a murder weapon - but without creating an article on the actual model of umbrella that was modified - exactly because the make and model of the modified implement does not in itself provide it with notability. Lklundin (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the arguments of Cullen328 the information about the attack is highly important. A separate article on the pager that itself is notable only for the attack prevents a centralized and well organized presentation of the information on these explosions. Lklundin (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is a historical first time. This product became important, indeed people looked on Wikipedia for this article (and it is good that they found it).Sinucep (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? What sources do we have? I asked this above and so far we have been presented with no sources to consider. We are looking for significant coverage of the product in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. No amount of saying it is notable is good enough. Where are the sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]