User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

The page is now updated at User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention. Please change links accordingly. You can still see the table below.

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 13:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Isha Malviya (2nd nomination)	3 months ago	4	7139	8406.61
Edward Parker (police officer)	20 days ago	1	3765	1800.18
Brower Youth Awards	19 days ago	2	7173	1630.61
Fermor (Russian nobility)	18 days ago	3	8921	1528.87
Second Battle of Robotyne	17 days ago	3	12209	1426.52
Upwave	15 days ago	1	8754	1405.88
Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh	14 days ago	1	6630	1382.29
Federation of European Mineral Programs	12 days ago	0	3152	1321.62
VanGrunsven RV-2	14 days ago	2	14860	1279.7
2021 Ravanusa explosion	13 days ago	2	4350	1215.03
Singara Chennai	13 days ago	2	5187	1196.67
Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao	11 days ago	1	4191	1195.15
Disagreement	11 days ago	1	3962	1185.02
Terwin (corporation)	13 days ago	2	7474	1176.86
Kicko & Super Speedo (2nd nomination)	12 days ago	2	4577	1169.92
Stock exchanges of small economies	14 days ago	4	5114	1154.89
2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing	12 days ago	2	4312	1154.6
Erel Segal	14 days ago	4	7151	1143.56
Islamic Association of Palestine	10 days ago	0	13154	1139.86
J.J. College of Arts and Science	13 days ago	3	4386	1129.69
Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)	13 days ago	3	6015	1126.66
CJ Cortalano	11 days ago	2	3219	1100.3
Delight Mobile	9 days ago	0	4340	1078.97
Marco Magnani	9 days ago	0	6589	1035.86
Swadhin Axom	11 days ago	3	18552	1014.96

Isha Malviya

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [1], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Edward Parker (police officer)

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

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [2]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([3]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Brower Youth Awards

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[4]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[5]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[6]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Fermor (Russian nobility)

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

Nonnotable RUssuan family tagged since 2019. ~~BAsically unreferenced.~~ - Altenmann >talk 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) -- Update: The article creator now added many references, but none of them speaks about family, only about individual members. - Altenmann >talk 17:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Keep Both named individuals of the Fermor family have high military ranks: William Fermor, General in Chief with the notable act of occupying Berlin plus Governor of Smolensk and Pavel Fermor, first principal of the Alexander Military Law Academy. William Fermor is referenced in the SSNE database of the University of St Andrews^[1] as Commander in chief of Russian forces during the 7 year war. Axisstroke (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Notability of some persons has nothing to do with the notability of the family. WP:NOTINHERITED - Altenmann >talk 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  The family bore arms of count of the Holy Roman Empire, your argument is pretty thin. Axisstroke (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  Evidence? Anyway, In Wikipedia a notability of a subject, namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)" is judged from the presence of reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. Please see WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS WP:CITE. - Altenmann >talk 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  The SSNE entry 3876 referenced above lists it. Axisstroke (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  SSNE 3876 says not a word about Russian family.- Altenmann >talk 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  SSNE 3876 references count Wiliam Fermor, the most prominent member of this noble Russian family. Axisstroke (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  For the fourth time, I don't see any references about "noble Russian family" to assert its notability for English Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  " Governor General of Eastern Prussia and Commander in chief of Russian forces", how can that not be more russian?!?
  
  A family is the sum of its members of which there are several notable members.
  
  Repeating nonsensical stuff 4 or 5 times does not prove your point.
  
  The article subject is a Strong Keep as stated early on. Axisstroke (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  Several persons with the same surname does not prove they constitute a family notable per Wikipedia requirements.
  
  You keep ignoring my request to provide reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. I find it really strange to call wikipedia policies "nonsensical stuff". - Altenmann >talk 17:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  The family has among its members several military leaders, one of the richest female entrepeneurs and has an high noble title. You seem not to have looked up the russian sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems your only argument. Also please stop removing relevant material. Axisstroke (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  Sorry, I think I understood where the misunderstanding comes from. Please provide sources about the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") rather than about individual members. In English Wikipedia Notability is not inherited. - Altenmann >talk 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  While the individual sources already give enough weight to its individual members of the family added relevant sources. Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Absent sources demonstrating notability for the family itself, this needs to be deleted. WP:NOTINHERITED goes both ways—a person does not become notable simply by belonging to a notable family, and likewise a family does not become notable simply by having notable members. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Not true and easily fixed from russian literature. Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Several entries and notable references to the Fermor family added. Axisstroke (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The Ukrainian language article mentions two presidents of the Duma of the same noble family. Unfortunately this probable claim/titles is written without direct reference. Axisstroke (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to the ukraine entry found a historical database entry of one Duma depute of the family, so added that too. Thank you for reevaluating on the now quite extensive list of important positions of the family Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete Famous members do not make a family notable. See WP:NINI and WP:BIOFAMILY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The rules that you cite apply for single members of a famous family. Here we discuss a renowned family with famous members and several references. Axisstroke (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Second Battle of Robotyne

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

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Southern Ukraine campaign: The information is useful, but does not require its own article. Whatever can be reliably cited should be moved to the main timeline article. Draftifying is practically no different than outright deleting: I do not see WP:LASTING notability being established anytime soon, so the article will just end up being deleted in draftspace after 6 months. C F A 💬 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Upwave

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:

This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g 🗯️ 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking, it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do – but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Teratix ₵ 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survata.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

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

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Federation of European Mineral Programs

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

VanGrunsven RV-2

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[7] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

~~Keep for now~~ Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
[Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)]

Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

2021 Ravanusa explosion

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

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

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

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

Delete. I genuinely don't remember what I was looking at here, did my brain make up sources? Doesn't pass nevent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep there is coverage in international sources as well CNN NBC Al Jazeera. The fact that plenty of national sources Rai Ansa also reported on the following trial shows the depth and duration of coverage needed to fulfill WP:NEVENT. @PARAKANYAA: I would like to hear why you think the coverage is not sufficient to pass NEVENT. Broc (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Singara Chennai

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

No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([8]), Chennai Online ([9]), and BizHat ([10]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Chennai: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films. Poor sources with no significant coverage and reliable critic reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I, the nominator, withdraw, my nomination in light of 3 new production sources. Thanks @Srivin:. DareshMohan (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to keep if sources covering production are judged sufficient; if redirected, Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films is imv a much better target, but List of Tamil films of 2004#July—September (where it's also listed) would seem even more appropriate, as other cast members have a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao

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

This seems to be a case of WP:INHERITED notability, given people largely talk about him in relation to his father. I can't check two of the sources here (and one is a WP:NOBITS) but the one I could find, as well as my searches of the internet returned no new sources for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I find this [11] and this [12] which I think is the same person that is the subject of the wiki article. Name or portions of the name seem to be very common, so it's hard to determine notability in sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement

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

Non notable topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment this is a one-line WP:DICTDEF because nobody could agree on a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Clearly something that should be redirected, but to what is the question. Disagreements (epistemology), Dissent, Objection (argument), Argument, etc. all seem like valid targets. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete and then move Disagreements (epistemology) to this title because the subject of that article corresponds to this one. Use a hatnote to point to the other redirect targets mentioned byCurbon7. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagreements (epistemology) has too many problems of its own to be the primary topic here. A broad-concept article at Agreement might be the best target; but I am not sure any redirect is better than the current quasi-DAB setup. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to any of the above choices. This article exists because nobody could what???????? 🤔

jp×g 🗯️ 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Terwin (corporation)

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

The Terwin corporation doesn't meet NCROP - no reliable independent of the subject sources; advertisement, Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The corporation is notable, it meets WP:ORGCRIT— it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the corporation. It is one of the biggest corporations in Ukraine with $1,6 billion assets and $1,7 billion revenue (2023). Before the Russian invasion, the revenue exceeded $2 billion. Nowadays, the corporation is building logistics hubs in four regions of Ukraine (Odesa, Lviv, Dnipro, Kyiv) with a total investment of more than $500 million. Of course, this and other activity of the corporation has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Perohanych (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
If so, share please 3 best sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT 167.86.184.60 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
All of them can be considered as secondary, independent of the subject, and with quite significant coverage of the corporation.

I am not sure if it is an extra argument, but simple Google Search gives 3800+ results --Perohanych (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: per WP:NCORP. There is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Most is in Russian or Ukrainian. See Google news. C F A 💬 16:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the company notability per WP:NCORP. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. Google News is not a measure of notability. Every source should be analyzed, and I have done this, concluding that all the sources met in the page and here provided by the author, are only superficial mentions or routine announcements with no single source providing in-depth, independent media coverage. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Well. Let's analyse every mentioned source:
1. The text of European Business Association is entirely devoted to Tervin and provides enough about the size of the corporation.
2. This text of Forbes is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's composition, assets and revenue, as well as information about the founders
3. This text of Liga is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's history
4. This text of New Voice is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the largest companies that make up the corporation
5. This text of Interfax is entirely devoted to co-operation of Tervin and the state Agency on investments.
All the media are independent. There are much more sources --Perohanych (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I checked the sources, all are paid, or not independent (EBA is a fee-based association which posts anything about their members). Forbes is not deep enough - it's just an announcement based on press-releases of the company. New Voice is an interview - definitely not independent or reliable source, Interfax is a press-release. 2603:9001:1E00:96F3:A459:81A7:7125:1D34 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

'Delete WP TOOSOON, absence of reliable independent of the subject sources. Maybe it will be easier to redirect the page to its founder. --2601:586:8401:C90:A2D2:B1FF:FE88:EFFC (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Which of the sources, listed above, is dependent on the subject? This corporation is already very notable. --Perohanych (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Kicko & Super Speedo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Former_programming - Not opposed to Keep, see User:Eastmain's comment during 1st Afd.My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (the ~~tag~~ (fact that the page) (edited for clarity) "It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag, even since May 2023, indicates more a cleanup issue than a notability one).
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Green Gold Animations? Or to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different target articles proposed here for a possible Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I'd say redirect it to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!. M S Hassan (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to Stock exchange. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Stock exchanges of small economies

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

This page is confusion as small economies are not defined and so would make more sense to create an article for each country instead. I don't see how this article can be kept up to date and what should be included, would countries go in and out over time as their economies change? The current content is out of date, which could be fixed, but it comes back to the purpose of this article. I feel the best solution at this stage is to delete it. Sargdub (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

delete This reads more like a college econ paper, and even if there is something there (and again, this comes across as topic, if it be viable, for the main stock exchange article) WP:TNT seems like the best solution. Mangoe (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

keep Article cites 4 research papers and 16 references on the very subject. The article could use some work, but it is obviously an important subject of study in both econ and development. On the criticism that it cannot stay up to date - how is it different than anything on wikipedia? Valuable start to a complex subject. Keep. Spencerk (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Stock exchange: This can be discussed topic in a broader article, which should be easier to navigate for users anyway. Only one of the papers focuses specifically on stock markets in smaller countries, and none of them appear to be important enough to have inline citations in the article. Even if sourcing is improved, WP: TNT is relevant, and there would need to be a very compelling reason why this is easier to navigate than putting it in the main Stock exchange article. I also think the Keep vote above grossly exaggerates the quality of sourcing in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect to Stock exchange My knee-jerk reaction is that I would love to read an article about how the stock exchanges of small economies are different from regular stock exchanges. It sounds educative and super neat. Upon viewing the article itself, however, that's not what it does. Upon a cursory look, almost all the sources cover individual stock exchanges, not small-economy stock exchanges as a concept. This article is arguably WP:OR for that reason. An article on small-economy stock exchanges could benefit the encyclopedia and its readers, but this is not that article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing

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

Just a news story, no significant coverage beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Indonesia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. This event did not receive WP:ROUTINE news coverage, but international news coverage [13] [14] [15], [16] and Time magazine analyzed the event in the context of Myanmar's Muslim-Buddhist conflict [17]. Longhornsg (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep, seems notable as it passes WP:GNG and coverage seems to go beyond WP:ROUTINE. Ednabrenze (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Keep arguments carry very little weight, but after three weeks, there is still no quorum to delete. Closing without prejudice against immediate renomination. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Erel Segal

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, just dummy articles! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Israel. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep - a very well known and prominent journalist. The article has over a dozen sources, and I will shortly add more Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Kentucky Rain24, can you share your WP:THREE please? Journalists are among the hardest to research. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

this provides an in depth look at Segal's political views and places them in the context of Israeli right wing media, and indicates notability beyond Israeli media
this is a lengthy, in-depth interview dedicated to Segal, in Israel's highest circulation mainstream newspaper. This alone satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
this provides English language coverage of a notable controversy he was involved with, showing notability beyond Israel (DW is a German broadcaster)

Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

#2 and #3 are not independent. BuzzFeed isn't very good but the journalist who wrote #1 is. gidonb (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is rated "green" and reliable on WP:RSNP. Why you'd think that ynet and deutsche welle are not independent of Segal is beyond me. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that these are interviews, quoted content, and shared sexism in a tv-show. Not independent content or SIGCOV. These media are actually good. Buzzfeed is acceptable because of the author. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the defintion of "independent" - ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."- an interview with Segal is not produced by him but by the paper and journalist interviewing him.

Regardless, while the DW article includes a very short quote from Segal, it is neither an interview nor focused on that quote. Instead, it describes the controversy Segal was involved with, with other 3rd parties commenting about Segal. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look and weigh again how much is independent content about Segal. Not ruling out any conclusion yet. gidonb (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete: There's coverage that mentions him, such as the DW article, but these aren't about this person. This [18] also mentions him, but just barely as the article talks about his employer. We don't have enough substantial coverage to keep the article Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that "mentions him, but just barely " is a fair assessment of [19] - the article is about an event in which he is the main subject - his employer suspended him for something he did. He is the subject of both the headline and the sub-headline, he is the main topic of the first and second paragraphs ("The Kan public broadcasting corporation on Thursday suspended one of its anchors because he appeared in a video"; "News presenter Erel Segal was suspended, pending further notice, after the video was uploaded to Netanyahu’s Twitter account earlier Thursday."), he is mentioned in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs and is the subject of the 5th, there's a quote from the PM of Israel about him etc... Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep. A very well-known journalist in Israel, and there are many sources for this. In addition, he is also a writer (2 books) and a musician. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). HaOfa (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as meeting NAUTHOR. gidonb (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Islamic Association of Palestine

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

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
[24] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
First article seems fine.

Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

A review of his work on NYTimes

"Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

J.J. College of Arts and Science

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

Article is written promotionally Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep. People from the school were a part of several books (albeit endless passing mentions) and the college's tryst with sports is documented (albeit passing mentions). DareshMohan (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I just had citation bot go fix bare URLs, this article has been here for almost 7 years now. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete, Draftify at most. Not notable and not enough WP:SIGCOV at this time to gather enough information to create a standalone article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG as the basic. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)

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

The person is not notable; highly promo article; sources are about companies nor the person; 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Keep. The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person. Probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. WP:MILL business person. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. No SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

~~I agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)~~

Please find some examples of WP:SIGCOV:
1. https://forbes.ua/profile/oleksandr-komarov-369 (1 place among top 25 best СЕО)
2. https://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2018/12/6/643323/
3. https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/markets/v-kijivstar-priznachili-novoho-kerivnika-z-beeline-2483354.html
See also 17,000+ results of Google Search in Ukrainian

Komarov is really No 1 business person in Ukraine --Perohanych (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) please adhere to this guideline and learn how to spot paid or superficial news from deep media coverage 182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! --Perohanych (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

CJ Cortalano

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this rugby league player to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was coverage of his high school wrestling days. JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Pro footballer who played at the 2017 RLWC. Fleets (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

As you know, participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated in 2022. Biographies of living persons require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Only one appearance for a minor RL country, minimal sourcing, nothing on his club carer.Mn1548 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete – most search results are only of brief mentions or squad lists – and one interview on USARL website (Cortalano Leading by Example) - no other significant coverage. EdwardUK (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Delight Mobile

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

This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The few existing sources:

Are anyone of these affiliated? Have google searches been done? Mrfoogles (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are barely-rehashed product release announcements – textbook trivial coverage that doesn't contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Marco Magnani

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [25] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [26] [27] [28] [29]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [30] [31] [32]

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

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [33][34] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [35] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

I'm not 100% sure if the book sources transfer over to his notability, but he's still got a case either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Swadhin Axom

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

[1]

User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

Navigation menu

Search